Worse than Rwanda

Sand

Looks like its happening again. Apparently up to 1 million people are being ethnically cleansed in Western Sudan by Arab militas which are backed by the government. Systematic rape is occuring, up to 100 women were raped in a single attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3549325.stm

Itll be interesting to see who comes riding in to save them. My bet is no one. Maybe, once all the killing and torture is done with some soldiers will be sent in to keep an eye on the desert they call peace. And theyll say never again, again.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
And theyll say never again, again. [/B]

Yup. Meanwhile Holocaust memorials will continue to multiply.

mike65

...and once again Sovtek responds with student philosophy. No-one will come to the resuce unles something important is threatened other than life of course. The UN will issue a statement, NATO wont intervene as its outside operations area. The African nations dont have any coherent structures for intervention.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10142&Cr=&Cr1=

History - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/827425.stm

Seaneh

This has been happening in southeren Sudan for over 30 years.
CNN ignored it for a long time and so none of the news stations picked up on it.
But yeah, it is horrible, thousands of women and children are captured evern month and raped, kileld or sold as slaves in other arab countries, and again CNN igonred it.
And if anyon can give me the reason why they ignored it, I'll give them a cookie.

Seaneh

And to add to this...
In the mid-late ninties, The South and Notrh agreed to draw an unoffical boarder at roughly midway.
A few years later a large ammount of oil is discovered about 150miles south of the devide, and the north declairs war against the southeren "rebels".
And CNN ignore it.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Itll be interesting to see who comes riding in to save them. My bet is no one.

Probably no-one. No US assets at risk, therefore Clinton's presidential policy document 25 says that the US will oppose UN action and since they have a veto....

BTW, I don't think this is "worse" than rwanda, if it's even possible to make that distinction with genocide, given that rwanda saw 800,000 killed in a hundred days while this isn't approaching that rate of carnage.

halkar

Year 2010 - CNN reports --> Large large large amounts of oil discovered in Sudan
.
.
.
.
Year 2015 - Bush VI invades Sudan to look for WMDs and promises democracy


we just have to wait I guess

Ailill

These kinds of incidents, Rwanda and now this, makes you wonder if perhaps the European powers pulled out of Africa too soon, before a true culture of democracy and enlightenment could flourish in these places.

What we seem to see so often in Africa is ethnic/tribal warfare carried out with modern weapons. Very very sad.

I don't imagine the western powers will do anything to help these people, but neither will Russia, China, Indonesia, the South American countries. There seems to be a sort of fatalism about Africa - that it's beyond redemption.

The important thing about any military intervention is that it must be able to achieve its goal quickly and that foreign troops can be pulled out the moment order is restored. I think that's the main reason US/EU countries steer clear of Africa - fear of getting bogged down.

AFAIK, there are US troops in Eritrea right now, maybe they could be mobilised, I'm doubtful though.

gurramok

European powers drew the borders in the first place without a consideration for ethnic/tribal desires.

Lack of intervention in Africa in times of turmoil shows the hyprocisy of the Iraq war.

There are plenty of murderous dicators there and genocide as in Sudan but as long as the natural resources are not threathened 'its ok to leave it be'.

IMHO, Africa should be top priority to get it peaceful and give its people some type of a future.

p

Originally posted by gurramok
IMHO, Africa should be top priority to get it peaceful and give its people some type of a future.

Well what are you going to do about it?

Lear

Originally posted by Sparks
Probably no-one. No US assets at risk, therefore Clinton's presidential policy document 25 says that the US will oppose UN action and since they have a veto....

I was wondering when the anti-US crowd would comment. Of course, had we done something, you'd claim it was all about oil.

Damned if you do .... damned if you don't ... but still better than being a leftist either way.

vorbis

good point lear. Sudan is also far nearer Europe than the US. It is also I believe a former british colony. Why would you expect the US to go in there? tbh, it was us europeans who f**ked up Africa. It should be our obligation to help them out.

halkar

And Iraq is next door to US? What are they doing there? Why would Sudan be any different to them if it is for humanity and democracy or any other country , nation in chaos?

Smell of money is in black and white there for US actions. Who cares about humans as long as their pocket gets filled?

Moriarty

People seem to ignore the hypocrisy in berating the US from intervening when european forces have intervened in these situations far less.

halkar

Yep, but US as yet to prove the world that they went Iraq for their freedom and democracy.
It was sad too see on last night's program about Baghdad when US forces were surrounding the Oil ministery while a cardiac hospital was burned out. Go figure.

My point is if Sudan was as oil rich as Iraq, I am sure they will have some excuse to go there too, but seen that now they have Iraq in their pocket, I don't think they will go anywhere else untill they dry the country out while people are still suffering.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Lear
Of course, had we done something, you'd claim it was all about oil.

Yeah, best not to do anything then really eh? :rolleyes:

The U.Ss administration say it wasn't about oil but about helping the poor oppressed Iraqi people to boot Saddam out and get a lovely new democracy.

They could use the same reasons for going into Sudan and the rest of the world might actually believe it was for the reasons stated and not to take control of natural resources.

Bascially millions of people around the world are under threat from their own government and America picked Iraq out of them all.
Why Iraq and not one of the others?
Are America going to get around to fixing all of the other countries when they're done making Iraq into a shiny new democracy?
Are they hell.

sovtek

Originally posted by mike65
...and once again Sovtek responds with student philosophy.

/me is wondering where you conjured that from.

sovtek

Originally posted by p
Well what are you going to do about it?

Quit supporting murderous dictators like Mobutu and "anti-communist rebels" like UNITA, as well as military aid to authoritarian governments that denied the vote to the majority of the population (National Party).
Forgive all IMF and WTO loans. Let them plant the crops they need instead of the ones we want to pay nothing for. Humanitarian assistance that doesn't have like strings attached.
Take back patents on AIDS drugs that we paid for and allow them to man them locally in African countries.
Either stop agricultural subsidies or quit trying to force African countries from doing so.
Allow them to decide their own economic system and not punish them when they do.
Thats a start anyway.

mike65

Originally posted by Moriarty
People seem to ignore the hypocrisy in berating the US from intervening when european forces have intervened in these situations far less.

Typical really, if they do something its wrong if they do nothing its wrong. There has been some Euopean intervention in recent years- France and the UK in west Africa.
Its time Africa starting looking after itself a bit.

Mike.

ps Sovtek - sorry.

sovtek

Originally posted by mike65
Typical really, if they do something its wrong if they do nothing its wrong. There has been some Euopean intervention in recent years- France and the UK in west Africa.
Its time Africa starting looking after itself a bit.

Mike.

ps Sovtek - sorry.

No prob.
I think it's a little more complicated than "damned if you do damned if you don't".
It's when presidents stand up and say "we're doing this to liberate the people of --place weak under-developed country here--" but meanwhile they've supported the oppresive regime of said country for x number of years whilst the worst crimes were committed. It also happens to coincide with a relative few people's business interest and strategic advantage.
People around the world say "no this isn't right", then the president says "you're all appeasers".
Then when a situation comes along where the people --place name of under developed country here-- do need liberating and don't happen to have something of strategic or economic advantage US sits around and says "that's an internal matter".
I'd also say some of the more recent actions by the UK and France are of a little different nature than whats going on in Iraq...Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala.
That's not trying to suggest that historically Europe isn't innocent when it comes to Africa either. Belgium, Britian, Portugal and France come to mind.

Sand

BTW, I don't think this is "worse" than rwanda, if it's even possible to make that distinction with genocide, given that rwanda saw 800,000 killed in a hundred days while this isn't approaching that rate of carnage.

Granted, but its worse for that fact that after Rwanda there was a lot of soul searching and "never again" again - Rwanda was the watershed and this sort of thing wouldnt be tolerated anymore. In that light, maybe Sudan is worse because after all that chit chat there still isnt any real concern. There is a distinct lack of credibility when nations and international organisations make be long winded speechers about freedom and democracy and human rights and then when its time to actually do more than talk....they vanish.

What we seem to see so often in Africa is ethnic/tribal warfare carried out with modern weapons. Very very sad.

Tribal loyalties seem to be far stronger in most parts of Africa than national loyalties, with most nations simply being articificially created on the basis of who had colonised a particular region rather than the cultural/tribal identity of the people living there. If you could go back and divide up Africa on more mono-cultural lines then maybe half the trouble wouldnt be there, but then if my aunty was my uncle....

Damned if you do .... damned if you don't ... but still better than being a leftist either way.

If its the correct action to take then it should be taken, regardless of whether you win the popularity contest or not. The US, Europe in general, Australia, South Africa, Japan and other developed/free "western" nations have immense power and influence and should be using this to pursue moral polices - which includes not tolerating the sort of medeival genocide which is taking place in Sudan. Its in their own long term interests as well - Saddam shows the benefit of short term "the enemy of my enemy" logic.

Of course the US can feel victimised as it is the whipping boy for the sins of the world. Not to say it hasnt sinned but youll rarely see as bitter a tirade against it and its policies as youll see against, say France. France participated in the supposed coup on haiti, committing troops to the occupation force, but the only ones getting the bad press for this apparrent coup are the US.

Yep, but US as yet to prove the world that they went Iraq for their freedom and democracy.

They dont have to "prove" it to anyone. They either pursue a just and correct strategy or they dont. History will judge it in the end.

My point is if Sudan was as oil rich as Iraq,

Sudan does have oil reserves- its half the reason for the civil war. The US is trying to diversify its oil dependancy away from the troublesome gulf region ( hence the Caspian sea pipeline and others ). For a foreign policy which is a slave to oil ( Welcome to the 21st century ) all the ingredients are there for a full on invasion....why arent we seeing it.

Ill help you out - its possibly because the US is at full stretch trying to maintain itself in Iraq whilst also maintaining enough reserves to keep the North Koreans and the Chinese in their respective boxes, precluding the possibility of further oil adventures in the short term. At this point youd imagine the EU or the UN would step forward to create safe areas for civillians and defend them - rather than scarper the first time bad guys show up.

Why Iraq and not one of the others?

Why not Iraq? Why one of the others? Another question, seeing as the US is busy in Iraq to the point where theres grumbling in the reserves over having to spend months/years abroad in a military base away from family and friends....Why the US? Why not the EU? The EU is not vassal of the US, just because the US isnt going in doesnt mean it cant.

p

Originally posted by sovtek
Quit supporting murderous dictators like Mobutu and "anti-communist rebels" like UNITA, as well as military aid to authoritarian governments that denied the vote to the majority of the population (National Party).
Forgive all IMF and WTO loans. Let them plant the crops they need instead of the ones we want to pay nothing for. Humanitarian assistance that doesn't have like strings attached.
Take back patents on AIDS drugs that we paid for and allow them to man them locally in African countries.
Either stop agricultural subsidies or quit trying to force African countries from doing so.
Allow them to decide their own economic system and not punish them when they do.
Thats a start anyway.

When I asked the question, I meant what were 'you' as an individual going to do. Not what 'we' should do.

I see many people giving out about the EU/UN/whatever doing nothing, but doing nothing but complain on a message board.

If you really want things to get fixed, write letters, join organisations etc...

This forum should be filled with suggestions on how to help this situation in addition to highlighting it.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
At this point youd imagine the EU or the UN would step forward to create safe areas for civillians and defend them - rather than scarper the first time bad guys show up.

If the members of the Security Council would give the UN a mandate to send an armed security force, they'd go. If any UN staff have 'scarpered' it's because they're civilians - would you prefer they stayed and defended themselves with pencils and paper?

The UN can only do what it is mandated by its member countries to do. The logical solution to your complaints is for the UN to have a large standing army to intervene forcefully in cases like this. Personally, I'd like to see that too.

shotamoose

Originally posted by p
If you really want things to get fixed, write letters, join organisations etc...

This forum should be filled with suggestions on how to help this situation in addition to highlighting it.

For all you know, people are doing those things. But this is a discussion board, where people discuss things. Asking "But what are you doing about it, eh?" is just dumb. We're talking about it, that's what we're doing. That's what people everywhere do. And yes, it's just talk, it doesn't get anything done by itself. If this upsets you so much, just don't join in.

p

shotamoose - That's a cop out of a rebuttal.

Yes, people might be doing it, and if they are that's great.

If they're not though, then what I brought up is very relevent to the topic at hand.

shotamoose

But you can ask "what are you doing about it?" about anything. Why aren't people writing letters and protesting about every single issue on this board? Why aren't you doing something about it right now instead of wasting time here?

sovtek

Originally posted by p
If you really want things to get fixed, write letters, join organisations etc...

You seem to be assuming that people like myself have not/am not doing those things.

This forum should be filled with suggestions on how to help this situation in addition to highlighting it.

Ok then what do you suggest?

Nuttzz

Originally posted by sovtek

Forgive all IMF and WTO loans.

Most of the IMF and WTO loans were used to buy weapons, if we forgive all these debts a lot of these countries will just borrow more to buy more weapons to sort their "internal security issues".

Africa suffers from bad government, if we drop the debt they will never learn, we could of course suspend the debt until they get back on their feet but they seem so incapable of governing themselves I can see why the banks won’t wait for this.

Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa up to a few years ago then Robert lost the plot and now all their productive farms are lying idle and the people are starving.
I can’t see anyone cancelling their debt can you?

If Europe is to blame for all of these problems then sending troops back in to sort these places out will be called the "return of the imperialists" won't it?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Nuttzz
Most of the IMF and WTO loans were used to buy weapons, if we forgive all these debts a lot of these countries will just borrow more to buy more weapons to sort their "internal security issues".

Could everyone make even a minimum of effort to get their facts straight.

Firstly the WTO don't give out loans.

Secondly the IMF only became the main lender to Third World countries AFTER the debt crisis exploded due to a massive hike in private sector interest rates around the world. Private sector banks had previously gone on a lending spree to Third World countries at effectively negative interest rates, but when it became clear that Third World countries couldn't possibly pay back their debts at sky-high interest rates the banks dug their heels in, used their political clout in the rich countries and were effectively bailed out by the IMF.

Thirdly, as far as I'm aware 'most' loans were not used to buy weapons. If you have a source for this claim I'd like to see it, otherwise kindly drop it. A lot of money was spent on arms and a lot of it was simply nicked by dictators - so please tell me why should this generation pay for the crimes of their former oppressors, many of whom were effectively bankrolled by one or both of the two superpowers at the time?? After all, the Saddam-era debt of Iraq is being mostly cancelled, so why not do the same for the debts ran up by African and South American dictators?

Fourthly, the evidence shows that where Third World debt has been cancelled the extra money has been spent on improving health and education for the poor. So to refuse to cancel the unpayable debt of the poorest countries is effectively the same as taking medicines from their sick and education from their children.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
Firstly the WTO don't give out loans.

I think people are getting the Word Bank and the World Trade Organisation confused there.

Private sector banks had previously gone on a lending spree to Third World countries at effectively negative interest rates, but when it became clear that Third World countries couldn't possibly pay back their debts at sky-high interest rates the banks dug their heels in, used their political clout in the rich countries and were effectively bailed out by the IMF.

Yeah - a large part of the IMFs funding does seem to go to bail out western creditors for existing debt. This is dealt with quite extensively by Stiglitz in "Globalisation and its Discontents".

jc

Nuttzz

http://www.debtireland.org (a drop the debt website)

Some of the money was spent on badly designed development projects, or on projects that produced very low rates of return, thereby making repayment difficult. However, substantial amounts of money either went to purchase arms, or into the private bank accounts of corrupt dictators

some of the money

---

> not more than 50%

substantial amounts of money

---

> more than some

so please tell me why should this generation pay for the crimes of their former oppressors

FF racked up a rake of debt in the 70's & 80's, why did I as a taxpayer since the late 80's have to pay high taxes to service the national debt that my parents generation borrowed. Please Mr Bank its not my fault. Your debts dont die with you BTW.

They still should have to repay it, the lending institutions could suspend repayments or charge 0% interest on them until they get back on their feet (as i said earlier)

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
If its the correct action to take then it should be taken, regardless of whether you win the popularity contest or not. The US, Europe in general, Australia, South Africa, Japan and other developed/free "western" nations have immense power and influence and should be using this to pursue moral polices - which includes not tolerating the sort of medeival genocide which is taking place in Sudan. Its in their own long term interests as well - Saddam shows the benefit of short term "the enemy of my enemy" logic.

SOUTH AFRICA, since when did it become a world power. Funny I was of the impression it was trying to improve the standard of living for the majority of the population that had been denied citizenship for hundreds of years.
As well as get investment into the country whilst not capitulating totally to the IMF for that investment.
Then it's got to worry about denied aid from the US because it's people said "boo" when Bush said "Iraq".

Of course the US can feel victimised as it is the whipping boy for the sins of the world.

Yes the poor poor downtrodden American government is such a batter bunch. It's busy defending itself from such big bullies like Saddam.

Not to say it hasnt sinned but youll rarely see as bitter a tirade against it and its policies as youll see against, say France. France participated in the supposed coup on haiti, committing troops to the occupation force, but the only ones getting the bad press for this apparrent coup are the US.

And what do you think would have happened if France would have said "yes Mr. Aristide we will send troops in to prevent the US backed coup militants from ousting you"?
Hell what do you think would have happened if the US said to Koffi "get a SC resolution and get in there and protect Aristide boy"?

They dont have to "prove" it to anyone. They either pursue a just and correct strategy or they dont. History will judge it in the end.

Or they don't prove anything and just take what they want from who they want.

Sudan does have oil reserves- its half the reason for the civil war.

Yes but getting oil isn't the problem, it's controlling the oil. Sudan isn't a big prize in that instance, Iraq is.

Ill help you out - its possibly because the US is at full stretch trying to maintain itself in Iraq whilst also maintaining enough reserves to keep the North Koreans and the Chinese in their respective boxes,

Yes it's busy trying to gain more control of world oil reserves.

The EU is not vassal of the US, just because the US isnt going in doesnt mean it cant. [/B]

If thats the only option then I don't disagree.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
its possibly because the US is at full stretch trying to maintain itself in Iraq whilst also maintaining enough reserves to keep the North Koreans and the Chinese in their respective boxes,

Which boxes are these, exactly, and is there any indication that either nation is actually trying to break out of said box should it exist?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Nuttzz
http://www.debtireland.org (a drop the debt website)

some of the money

---

> not more than 50%

substantial amounts of money

---

> more than some

No, that's your interpretation. 'Some' can mean more than 'substantial'. I'm not going to waste time on semantics - again, if you can find a source that says clearly that 'most' of the money was spent on weapons I'd like to see it. It may have happened in a very small number of individual countries, but I think your generalisation was false.

FF racked up a rake of debt in the 70's & 80's, why did I as a taxpayer since the late 80's have to pay high taxes to service the national debt that my parents generation borrowed. Please Mr Bank its not my fault. Your debts dont die with you BTW.

We lived in a democracy and had the choice to vote FF out. The people who lived in Zaire, Argentina etc lived in dictatorships, dictatorships who were given loans by private banks and multilateral institutions, much of which they either simply took for themselves or used to oppress their people. You're saying that it's not enough that people suffered under tyrants in the past - now the people who live in these countries today (many of whom struggled long and hard for the democracy that we take for granted) should pay the bills too.

The point still stands. Poor countries who are getting debt cancellation are spending more than they otherwise would on health and education. You, apparently, would rather they didn't.

Nuttzz

So we write off the debt of these countries and when another tin pot dictator comes along, do we give him a wedge of cash and then write it off when he is kicked out?

and i will repeat myself yet again

They still should have to repay it, the lending institutions could suspend repayments or charge 0% interest on them until they get back on their feet.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Nuttzz
So we write off the debt of these countries and when another tin pot dictator comes along, do we give him a wedge of cash and then write it off when he is kicked out?

It is precisely because these debts will have been written off that banks would be scared of lending to 'tin-pot dictators' again. Which would mean tin-pot dictators would have less opportunity to rip off their own subjects, which would be less of an incentive to seize power.

and i will repeat myself yet again

They still should have to repay it, the lending institutions could suspend repayments or charge 0% interest on them until they get back on their feet.

I don't think dictators' debts should ever have to be paid back - it sets a bad example, as I've explained. For other Third World debts, I agree that payments should be reduced or suspended in light of required expenditure on health, education and other essentials.

mike65

Originally posted by sovtek
SOUTH AFRICA, since when did it become a world power. Funny I was of the impression it was trying to improve the standard of living for the majority of the population that had been denied citizenship for hundreds of years.

South Africa is the African superpower. It has the men and the means to make a difference but has in its 10
years since full democracy failed to use it. A pity as next door Zimbabwe goes to hell in a handcart.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Nuttzz
So we write off the debt of these countries and when another tin pot dictator comes along, do we give him a wedge of cash and then write it off when he is kicked out?

I'd suggest that you educate yourself on exactly how international loans are now structured, and why they have become structured that way.

I'm not being facetious - it will show why your suggestion is so far off track.

jc

Nuttzz

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd suggest that you educate yourself on exactly how international loans are now structured, and why they have become structured that way.

I'm not being facetious - it will show why your suggestion is so far off track.

jc

MMMM

Sand

SOUTH AFRICA, since when did it become a world power.

Perhaps not a world power such as the EU might be but its certainly a regional power that can use its relative power and influence to great effect in southern africa, and perhaps africa as a whole. Unfortunately theyve spent their time getting chummy with Mugabe and he pisses his country down the drain. On top of this, Mbeki has done his bit to make the pope sound sensible when it comes to AIDs and the effect its having on Africa.

And my point was not that South Africa should go around backing up the international love of democracy and human rights but that it was one of the nations which had the power and influence to do so.

And what do you think would have happened if France would have said "yes Mr. Aristide we will send troops in to prevent the US backed coup militants from ousting you"?

You see what I mean about whipping boy? The US gets the bad press, when its pointed out France was in there as dirty as the other then suddenly its not really like they had a choice, mitigating circumstances and exscuses and a more neutral, almost sympathetic tone appears.

Maybe France would have been scared to send troops in to prevent Aristides fall - so the obvious choice then is to send them in as part of the deal which removes Aristide? France wasnt afraid to oppose the US not so long ago, now suddenly they are?

Which boxes are these, exactly, and is there any indication that either nation is actually trying to break out of said box should it exist?

China - Taiwan, and North Korea - South Korea. The US has made undertakings in both cases, which must be backed up with a credible military force to discourage any agressive moves. Removing the military forces from here and committing them to Sudan, whilst already heavily committed to Iraq removes a vital protection for two of the more successful democracies in Asia - even with the recent troubles in South Korea, and the shooting of the Taiwanese leaders.

The US has successfully managed to present an image of near limitless resources and power but this is a bluff. It cannot fight multiple wars all across the globe simultaneously and commit hundreds of thousands of troops to each region that needs some stability. Realistically it has set itself the target of being capable of fighting and winning two wars simultaneously - Iraq is one.

In such a case its time for the EU and the other "enlightened" nations to provide some support to their ideals ( not necessarily the US - preventing a slaughter in Sudan is not in conflict with the EUs claimed respect for human rights and intolerance of genocide ) that goes beyond words, undertakings and treaties. The US can be criticised for what its done and what its doing - the EU cant because its not doing anything concrete to prevent this slaughter - isnt this what the EU RRF is supposed to be for? 60000 troops able to deploy extremely quickly on humnaitarian missons?

If the members of the Security Council would give the UN a mandate to send an armed security force, they'd go. If any UN staff have 'scarpered' it's because they're civilians - would you prefer they stayed and defended themselves with pencils and paper?

Im was referring to Srebinica where the UN forces willingly surrendered civillians they claimed to be protecting to be massacred by the Serbs. Why arent the UN up for crimes against humanity?

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd suggest that you educate yourself on exactly how international loans are now structured, and why they have become structured that way.

Since I'm not exactly sure what you mean either, would you care to elaborate?

sovtek

Originally posted by mike65
South Africa is the African superpower. It has the men and the means to make a difference but has in its 10
years since full democracy failed to use it. A pity as next door Zimbabwe goes to hell in a handcart.

Mike.

And what exactly should they do about Mugabe?