Rapes in Sudan

[Midav]

BEIRUT, Lebanon (*******) -- Arab militias in Sudan are gang-raping and abducting girls as young as eight and women as old as 80, systematically killing, torturing, or using them as *** slaves, an Amnesty International report said on Monday.

Militias known as Janjaweed, which rights groups say are backed by the government, have been fighting rebels in Sudan's western Darfur region since last year, triggering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

"When we tried to escape they shot more children," one woman identified only as A. told Amnesty researchers.

"They raped women, I saw many cases of Janjaweed raping women and girls. They are happy when they rape. They sing when they rape and they tell us that we are just slaves and that they can do with us how they wish."

As many as 30,000 people have been killed in Darfur and more than a million displaced, their homes bombed by government planes, their crops stolen.

In a report called "Rape as a Weapon of War," Amnesty outlines ****** violence against women it says is happening on a massive scale. It says Khartoum is actively violating its legal obligations to protect civilians.

"Soldiers of the Sudan government army are present during attacks by the Janjaweed and when rapes are committed, but the Sudan government has done nothing so far to stop them," Amnesty researcher Benedicte Goderiaux told a news conference.

Darfur's rebels accuse the government of arming the Arab Janjaweed to loot and burn African villages in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Khartoum denies the charge.

The Sudan embassy in Beirut said in a statement that the Amnesty report was aimed at defaming the government, distorting Arab culture and driving a wedge between Sudan's ethnic groups.

****** slavery
The Amnesty report, launched in Beirut and Nairobi, details gang rapes, public rapes, killings of those who resist rape, abductions for ****** slavery, and cases where women and girls have had their legs broken to stop them running away.

It is based on hundreds of testimonies collected from refugees in camps in Chad. Although the sample of victims was limited, Amnesty said it pointed to widespread abuse.

The London-based group said rebels fighting the Janjaweed may also have raped civilians, but facts were limited.

One woman was five months pregnant when the Janjaweed abducted her and eight others during an attack in July.

"After six days some of the girls were released. But the others, as young as eight years old, were kept there," she said.

"Five to six men would rape us in rounds, one after the other for hours during six days every night. My husband could not forgive me after this, he disowned me."

Efforts to end the crisis through negotiations are in tatters after rebels stormed out of peace talks last week. They said they would only meet government delegates when Khartoum fulfilled promises including disarming the Janjaweed.

Amnesty called for an end to the conflict, better protection of civilians, Janjaweed disarmament, trials for those carrying out the attacks and an international commission of inquiry to examine war crimes in Darfur.

A separate conflict in Sudan between the government and southern rebels has killed around two million people in the past two decades. Peace negotiations have brought it close to an end.


Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/07/19/sudan.rapes.reut/index.html)

If true, this is sick. Where the hell is the UN?

[One?]

if there was economic gain or oil in sudan, all the armies in the world will be there in no time.

[Kilgor]

Think again idiot, there is considerable oil in sudan.

[SpikeATGM]

To UN, the death of one palestinian is a more important than the suffering and death of so many sudanese.

[Kilgor]

Yes, there is no political gain to be made out of people in africa butchering each other up.

[maw]

what's up? you usually have a much more informed opinion...
when khartoum went on the rampage in the south the us did get involved, we gave the spla twenty million or so along with some training (remeber, garang is a benning grad). things changed. now ahmad el-bashier and his cronies in khartoum have found a softer target to bully.


if there was economic gain or oil in sudan, all the armies in the world will be there in no time.

[Jack Mehoff]

if there was economic gain or oil in sudan, all the armies in the world will be there in no time.

Do you alway think before spewing out garbage?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

[hank]

The UN's actions over the years in Africa are unexplainable.

hank

[Nizark]

The UN's actions over the years in Africa are unexplainable.

hank

Damn right...****, imagine if the sec. gen of the UN wasn't from africa...there would be even less attention

[One?]

so you're telling me that the US and other countries look at Sudan the same way they would look at iraq (economicaly that is)?

even arabs don't give a ***** about sudan.

[usa320]

damned if you do, damned if you dont.

:(

i think we should be there anyway...

[BadKarma26]

Didn't we get saddam months ago?

[Fintin]

Didn't we get saddam months ago?

you worry me...


my freshman year a kid who had graduated the year before came back and gave a presintation about his trip to Sudan...very interesting...there is no reason we shouldnt know about whats happening there, but we dont know whats happening there...i mean...they have oil...gold...and diamonds in africa...enough wealth to buy the rest of the world...yet we seem to look at them as some bastard red headed stepchild...i dont get it...the UN seems to have no clue to whats going on...despite the fact they know very well...i just hope we get the Stan and Iraq cleaned up in time to help these people...war is one thing...cold blooded murders and rapes are a whole new ball game...maybe there is something about society in africa i dont understand...but so far i havnt found it...thanks for listening

[hank]

Man over 600,000 people died in Ruwanda a short while back and even some Canadian UN peacekeepers perished [RIP those brave souls] and the world, including the US, sat back and did a big goose-egg.

I don't know why and I'm not sure anyody does, but the fact is that the West just doesn't do anything about stuff in Africa. The UN is merely an extension of this mentality in this area. I mean how many died in Eastern Europe [kosovo and elsewhere] and the UN couldn't send combat forces fast enough. I'm not assessing any blame, those two reactions to killing civilians simply aren't consistent.

I also remember hearing Kofi Annan recently say [on a NPR broadcast about Ruwanda] something to the effect that he wouldn't put other UN personnel to suffer the same fate as those Canadians in Ruwanda.

hank

[Secret Squirrel]

Man over 600,000 people died in Ruwanda a short while back and even some Canadian UN peacekeepers perished [RIP those brave souls] and the world, including the US, sat back and did a big goose-egg.

I don't know why and I'm not sure anyody does, but the fact is that the West just doesn't do anything about stuff in Africa. The UN is merely an extension of this mentality in this area. I mean how many died in Eastern Europe [kosovo and elsewhere] and the UN couldn't send combat forces fast enough. I'm not assessing any blame, those two reactions to killing civilians simply aren't consistent.

I also remember hearing Kofi Annan recently say [on a NPR broadcast about Ruwanda] something to the effect that he wouldn't put other UN personnel to suffer the same fate as those Canadians in Ruwanda.

hank

Rwanda genocide happened 10 years ago (1994?) and over 800,000 died in 100 days. Clinton's reasoning for not going in was that the U.S had no national interests in Rwanda (it also was shortly after, if i recall correctly the battle of the black sea). The Belgiums also pulled their forces leaving Roméo Dallaire with a force of about 450 soldiers. He got screwed over big time and had to relieve himself of his command due to stress. Anyway, back on topic, i thought the African Union was sending or sent troops to Darfur region?

[seruriermarshal]

Again , we can't see where are U.N. .

[futurepilot2004]

With the US tied up in iraq and afganistan and most European countries involved in kosovo, iraq, afganistan, peacekeepers from asia should be sent in. Maybe China should demonstrate its new openess by getting involved in UN missions. Relying on the US or European armies isn`t reasonable anymore.
Another solution would be to use a large force made up of african countries and backed up by a smallish american or european force as is the case in Liberia at the moment( 9000 african troops backed up by 500 Irish troops and special forces) and the Democratic Republic of Congo(10000 african troops with 1500 european troops).

[futurepilot2004]

[cut]

if there was economic gain or oil in sudan, all the armies in the world will be there in no time.

that is not true... the US would be there in no time, but they are busy at the moment.

[maw]

Anyway, back on topic, i thought the African Union was sending or sent troops to Darfur region?

yeah, all 300 of them. :roll:

[maw]

so you're telling me that the US and other countries look at Sudan the same way they would look at iraq (economicaly that is)?

naturally America views the sudan from a different perspective than iraq. so what? the US has other fish to fry right now. imho, no US politician wants to be seen commiting troops to another african adventure.

in the past the US has been able to apply influence to a specific nation through more discreet means, however in the case of darfur there is no spla equivalent to arm and use as a distant instrument of foreign policy.


even arabs don't give a ***** about sudan.

negative. it's arab influence that is specifically causing the current turmoil over there. there are fundementalists in country in sudan right now. you want aq? they're there. looking for some uzbeks? they're there too. it's a real hodge podge mix.

the sudanese government is playing to both sides of the fence. but itself leans more naturally towards fundamentalism. remember, it's a TOTALITARIAN THEOCRACY.

[BlackRain]

if there was economic gain or oil in sudan, all the armies in the world will be there in no time.

that is not true... the US would be there in no time, but they are busy at the moment.

Cheap Shot.


France has the single largest foreign oil concession in Sudan.

The US has had sactions against Sudan for being a terrorist nation for years. No oil trade or commerce can be conducted by the USA or any company with Sudan.

Sadly, the same cannot be said about some of the larger high-minded peace loving EU members.


France opposes UN Sudan sanctions France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.

The UN Security Council is due to discuss a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.

The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government.

Meanwhile, African leaders have urged Khartoum to stop bombing Darfur and say their proposed 300-strong force will have a mandate to protect civilians.

'Civil war'

Some one million people have fled their homes and at least 10,000 have been killed in what the UN calls "the world's worst humanitarian crisis."

A rebellion broke out in Darfur early last year, when two groups took up arms, accusing the government of ignoring the region.

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq, and as in Iraq also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.

Human rights activists say the pro-government militia, known as the Janjaweed, are conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African population.

Those who have fled their homes say the Janjaweed ride on horses and camels into villages which have just been bombed by government aircraft, killing the men and raping the women.

Sudan denies backing the militia and, under strong international pressure, has promised to disarm them.

Travel ban

Chairman of the African Union Commission Alpha Oumar Konare said that the 300 troops would arrive in Sudan by the end of July.

He said they would intervene if they saw civilians being killed.

The government of Sudan is clearly on a short leash John Danforth US Ambassador to the UN

"We have called for a halt to the bombings... We received promises today from Khartoum," he said. Analysts say that at least 15,000 troops would be needed to bring peace to the vast area of Darfur.

The BBC's Barnaby Phillips says the African Union is determined to be taken seriously as a body devoted to solving the continent's problems, but is severely hampered by a lack of resources.

African leaders say they hope richer countries will also do their bit to help.

A draft UN resolution proposed by the US envisages travel and arms sanctions on Janjaweed.

A previous Security Council statement on Darfur failed to criticise Khartoum directly, after resistance from Pakistan and China, instead urging cooperation and the disarming of the Janjaweed.

Question of time

The Security Council met in closed session for several hours on Wednesday and is to meet again on Thursday.

Council members disagree over how long the Sudanese government should be given to resolve the situation itself, says the BBC's Stephen Gibbs in New York.

Some countries, including Pakistan, say that Sudan should be allowed sufficient time to demonstrate that it means what it says. But the US remains sceptical over Sudan's commitment to act.

The US draft resolution threatens to escalate the sanctions within 30 days if results are not evident.

"Thirty days is too long for the government to act," said US ambassador to the UN, John Danforth.

"The government of Sudan is clearly on a short leash."

But diplomats hope that the combined tough talking will force Sudan to act, our correspondent says.

They admit that imposing such a resolution on the largest country in Africa is fraught with difficulty, he says.

[radon]

if there was economic gain or oil in sudan, all the armies in the world will be there in no time.

Do you alway think before spewing out garbage?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

There is oil in Sudan. Fine but does the oil flow? If yes then then oil is not a reason to go there with the military. If Oil being sold = no economic gain in military intervention in Sudan

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Man over 600,000 people died in Ruwanda a short while back and even some Canadian UN peacekeepers perished [RIP those brave souls] and the world, including the US, sat back and did a big goose-egg.

I don't know why and I'm not sure anyody does, but the fact is that the West just doesn't do anything about stuff in Africa. The UN is merely an extension of this mentality in this area. I mean how many died in Eastern Europe [kosovo and elsewhere] and the UN couldn't send combat forces fast enough. I'm not assessing any blame, those two reactions to killing civilians simply aren't consistent.

I also remember hearing Kofi Annan recently say [on a NPR broadcast about Ruwanda] something to the effect that he wouldn't put other UN personnel to suffer the same fate as those Canadians in Ruwanda.

hank

Rwanda genocide happened 10 years ago (1994?) and over 800,000 died in 100 days. Clinton's reasoning for not going in was that the U.S had no national interests in Rwanda (it also was shortly after, if i recall correctly the battle of the black sea). The Belgiums also pulled their forces leaving Roméo Dallaire with a force of about 450 soldiers. He got screwed over big time and had to relieve himself of his command due to stress. Anyway, back on topic, i thought the African Union was sending or sent troops to Darfur region?

During the Rwanda crisis, the dreaded "G" word was avoided like the plague...because the UN has a mandate to intervene in cases of genocide.

In this case the US has used the G word. Colin Powell has demanded that the Security Council act with military intervention if necessary. France has blocked that. Ever the experts at appeasement, France prefers economic sanctions.

Can you F'ing believe that? These people have nothing, are being starved to death, and France wants to take more away from them? So here we sit in our 3 piece suits, gentlemen all, discussing the proper way to help these poor miserable savages. I suppose they figure that if they wait long enough, the problem will resolve itself.