The other day it was determined that Sudan would not be taking over the chairmanship of the African Union (AU) due to the current situation in Darfur, according to The Washington Post and BBCNews.com. As many know the current situation in Darfur, a region in Sudan, is a systematic killing of the non-Baggara. The killing is being carried out by the janjaweed: a militia group recurited from the tribes of the Abbala. The Janjaweed are being backed by the Sudanese governement, under the leadership of President Omar al-Bashir. The Sudanese government has denied supporting the janjaweed.
As chairman of the AU, Sudan would be able to cut funding and support from the AU's peacekeeping mission in the Darfur region.
The UN is asking al-Bashir to allow a joint UN/AU peacekeeping force in Darfur. There are already 2,370 AU troops in Darfur; the UN is looking to send a peacekeeping force of 22,000. According to an article from The Washington Post, Sudanese Presidential adviser Majzoub al-Khalifa said there was a consensus on the first two stages of UN support for a 7,500 strong AU mission in Darfur; however, there was no agreement to deploy a hybrid force. A Sept. 25, 2006 report from PBS Online NewsHour reported that the AU troop level would reach 11,000.
The Sudanese government did agree to allow up to 1,000 UN support personnel to boost the struggling AU.
Many nations, including the United States, have called what is taking place in Darfur a genocide. However, these nations still fail to step up and put more pressure on al-Bashir and his government.
Seeing as how Sudan was passed over for the chairmanship because of the situation in Darfur, it should send a message to the rest of the world. Why is it so hard for the international community to step in? Yes, the UN can not go in without the consent of the government or an unanimous security council vote. Still there are other things that can be done; unfortunately they are only being done by NGOs and they are not being successful in ending this genocide. Only military intervention will end it.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Stopping a Genocide
By: Bill Rice and Jeremy Long
For the past couple of months we been trying to lead intelligent discussions, correcting people, and just downright arguing with people on several facebook discussion boards having to deal with the genocide going on in Darfur. These groups were created with the intent on spreading awareness but more often than not it brings in people who decide to post things such as "you people are dumb for supporting this cause. Nothing is going to stop it." Then there are the other people who post information in an attempt to educate the people in the group. And finally there are the people who have constructive debates which shed light on both sides of the issues. With that said we just wanted to vent on some things we have been noticing on these threads.
1) Darfur does not equal Iraq
Many times I have seen someone post "Everyone in this group opposes the war in Iraq but they want to send troops to Darfur. I bet you are going to oppose a war in Darfur." Or "Saddamdon't you support the war in Iraq?" We will admit that we oppose the war in Iraq; however, I would not oppose a troop deployment to Darfur. Reason being is that will be the only way to successfully stop a genocide. It would have to be a UN peacekeeping force or a NATO force. We would would also have agreed to sending troops to Iraq to stop the genocide back in the '80s when it was taking place. When the US invaded in 2003 it was to take Saddam out of power, not to stop a genocide.
These posters assume that anyone involved in the Save Darfu campaign are also people that are opposed to the Iraq War. This is not true. The Save Darfur campaign is nonpartisan and composed of Democrats and Republicans, and porbably some registered independents and third party memebers as well. The campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur has ntohing to do with Iraq.
2) Sending a military force to Darfur does not mean sending US troops.
If a NATO or UN force were to be deployed to Darfur it would be made up of troops from the international commuinty. These troops would most likely come from Belgium, France or some other European county. There are several UN peacekeeping missions going on in the world where there are no US troops deployed. Granted it is possible that some US troops could be deployed. The US could also find other ways to support a mission in Darfur. Sending supplies or providing logistical support for example to the African Union troops who are already there or to a UN/NATO force for example. The supporters of the Save Darfur campaign are calling for a multinational force whereas some of who were against Bush's rush to war in Iraq critiziced the President for his lack of an international support.
3) Saving Darfur is not an issue of trendiness
Many people have posted that supporting the Darfur groups is a way for people to be trendy. What is hard to comprehend is how somone could even make such an outlandish statement. For some reason people see celebrities like Goerge Clooney and college kids lending thier support to the campaign and they figure the "cool," nonconformist thing to do is criticize it as trendy. Not that the innocent men, women, and children matter here. What matters, apparently, is not conforming to the "trends."
.
For the past couple of months we been trying to lead intelligent discussions, correcting people, and just downright arguing with people on several facebook discussion boards having to deal with the genocide going on in Darfur. These groups were created with the intent on spreading awareness but more often than not it brings in people who decide to post things such as "you people are dumb for supporting this cause. Nothing is going to stop it." Then there are the other people who post information in an attempt to educate the people in the group. And finally there are the people who have constructive debates which shed light on both sides of the issues. With that said we just wanted to vent on some things we have been noticing on these threads.
1) Darfur does not equal Iraq
Many times I have seen someone post "Everyone in this group opposes the war in Iraq but they want to send troops to Darfur. I bet you are going to oppose a war in Darfur." Or "Saddamdon't you support the war in Iraq?" We will admit that we oppose the war in Iraq; however, I would not oppose a troop deployment to Darfur. Reason being is that will be the only way to successfully stop a genocide. It would have to be a UN peacekeeping force or a NATO force. We would would also have agreed to sending troops to Iraq to stop the genocide back in the '80s when it was taking place. When the US invaded in 2003 it was to take Saddam out of power, not to stop a genocide.
These posters assume that anyone involved in the Save Darfu campaign are also people that are opposed to the Iraq War. This is not true. The Save Darfur campaign is nonpartisan and composed of Democrats and Republicans, and porbably some registered independents and third party memebers as well. The campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur has ntohing to do with Iraq.
2) Sending a military force to Darfur does not mean sending US troops.
If a NATO or UN force were to be deployed to Darfur it would be made up of troops from the international commuinty. These troops would most likely come from Belgium, France or some other European county. There are several UN peacekeeping missions going on in the world where there are no US troops deployed. Granted it is possible that some US troops could be deployed. The US could also find other ways to support a mission in Darfur. Sending supplies or providing logistical support for example to the African Union troops who are already there or to a UN/NATO force for example. The supporters of the Save Darfur campaign are calling for a multinational force whereas some of who were against Bush's rush to war in Iraq critiziced the President for his lack of an international support.
3) Saving Darfur is not an issue of trendiness
Many people have posted that supporting the Darfur groups is a way for people to be trendy. What is hard to comprehend is how somone could even make such an outlandish statement. For some reason people see celebrities like Goerge Clooney and college kids lending thier support to the campaign and they figure the "cool," nonconformist thing to do is criticize it as trendy. Not that the innocent men, women, and children matter here. What matters, apparently, is not conforming to the "trends."
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
