United States calls a spade a spade

Sand

Colin Powell has described the atrocities of the Sudanese Arab militias against the people of Darfur as genocide, which is pretty important as the U.N. has a duty to prevent genocides from occuring, assuming it recognises the situation in Darfur as genocide. The U.S. is however tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq and realistically cant intervene in force in Darfur - it is calling for sanctions against the Sudanese government, but I doubt these will have the intended rapid effect as the Sudanese government does not actually command the Arab militias...it just armed and trained them and turned them loose to terrorise the people of Darfur. If it tries to take back its weapons it will probably have to pry them from the militias cold dead fingers. Faced with a choice between sanctions and a potential civil war, theyll choose the sanctions Id guess.

Even then, it will be difficult to get measures as limited as sanctions passed as the enlightened members of the U.N. will do their best to avoid accepting responsibility for intervention in Darfur - it might set a precedent that could undermine precious national sovereignty.

Right now the Arab militias are threatening the refugee camps - some security there is required to protect the refugees and indeed aid workers attempting to assist them. European governments, despite being extremely wealthy, and boasting more than enough troops is doing its best to not get involved - Last I heard the African Union was going to send 2000 troops but this would be dependant on the permisson of the Sudanese government - i.e. no real effective deterrent to the arab militias.

The people of Darfur are suffering in ways we cannot even begin to imagine, and the best they can get from the wealthiest and most powerful nations are condemnations - but no rapid, effective action to protect their most basic human rights. After lessons learned from debacles like Rwanda there are no more exscuses for our political leaders - The U.S. at least is talking plainly, but talk is cheap. A credibility gap is emerging ( to be honest - it has always been there) between values the developed nations profess to hold dear to their hearts, and what theyre prepared to do to back them up. Does anyone else feel we should redefine our principles so we are less embarrassed by our failure to live by them?

arcadegame2004

It would be nice if they called a spade a spade with regard to the genocide in Chechnya.

I agree though that something must be done to save the people of Darfur from the evil Khartoum regime.

Sand

Tbh, you agreeing with me doesnt do me any favours:D

MrPudding

Sand wrote:

Tbh, you agreeing with me doesnt do me any favours:D

I know it makes you feel durty.

MrP

chewy

A british man has been brokering arms deals to Sudan via Ireland to get around British arms trade laws...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1247520,00.html

Sparks

Good to see the G word being used.
Even if it is by the same country that didn't use it in Rwanda....
But still, that shouldn't really detract from efforts in Darfur.

Redleslie2

Obviously, if the US military wasn't tied up with Operation Humanitarian Bloodbath in Iraq and that other one nobody's interested in anymore, they'd be in Sudan right now kicking ass. Hoo ha. :eek:

mike65

What difference will it make? None unless the UN votes to send in a mulit-national force.

Mike.

redspider

I found it more than ironic that on the same day Powell (the dove!) was mentioning genocide in Sudan, that that US military operation in Iraq was killing women and children as legitimate targets in Faullujah in Iraq! Talk about the spade calling the kettle black.

Let the NGO's and non-military aligned countries (like Ireland) assess and sponsor resolutions in the UN. Agressive powers like the US that are abusing their powers and killing and causing mayhem and destruction should be given a wide berth by other countries if pretending to be global peace keepers.

As it happened the resolution did not get support in the council chamber.

I dont know enough about the situation in Sudan to comment. Clearly, Africa hs huge problems as many countries are false and dont match tribal grouping correctly or boundaries. The Hutus and Tutsi problem is an example of that, it was missed by the global powers and it is still going on.

Another example of an "internal" problem that had huge effects was the atrocities in Algeria [edit: was Libya] in the 90's. These ended with terrorism groupings forming and ultimately was the spark that created the al-qaeda network and related network of terrorists.

spongebob

redspider wrote:

Talk about the spade calling the kettle black.

The spade is digging for freedom and democracy and for all freedom loving people everywhere who join this spade digging coalition of the willing.

If some commie **** comes with a shovel instead we will accidentally smack the bitch with a Hellfire missile the way we got al jazeera in the Baghdad hotel that time.

M

redspider

Muck wrote:

The spade is digging for freedom and democracy and for all freedom loving people everywhere who join this spade digging coalition of the willing. If some commie **** comes with a shovel instead we will accidentally smack the bitch with a Hellfire missile the way we got al jazeera in the Baghdad hotel that time.

I take it you are agreeing with me .... or?

The spade is insuring that its interests are being upheld and supported, whether using financial incentives or sheer state terror. Its the age old question that the governments that are involved whether directly or support cant answer. What to do with state terrorism? Blair was asked that last week in a news press conference and just fobbed it off indicating that if British and US military forces kill innocent people in Iraq it is ok and "cant be compared" (his words) to killings by terrorists. One person's terrorist is a UN-recognised legitimate government like the US or UK. The danger with Bush and Blair is that they think in their own minds that they are right through the direction of God and Christianity and what is right. Then the US/UK media mention phrases like Islamist Fundamentalists?

The analogy I use is the bully in the playground. That is the US, they are 25 years old, 25 stone and are picking on toddlers that are 1.5 with a baseball bat. And buying sweets for the 5 year olds. They do collect all the lunches though. The problem, is that the 25 year old is paying the teachers (UN) who are drinking coffee in the staff room, and dont even know the children they have.

1 child death in Iraq is EQUAL to 1 child death in Beslan

wake up US and UK people

time to vote Blair and Bush out (note: Blair is already preparing for Bush to be voted out!)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I agree. The The wholesale murder of children was a new low.

What has the UN done to tackle the threat of global terrorisim.

Some people probably see slaugher in Beslan as political. Just as some people saw Warrington, Enniskillan and Omagh as political - but terrorism has to be tackled.

Attacks on embasseys, schools, treatres and public streets are acts that begger belief and show scant regard for human life.

They leave hurt, pain, loss and much suffering in their wake.

shotamoose

Cork wrote:

I agree. The The wholesale murder of children was a new low.

It would have been a new low if there was anything new about it. But rounding up hundreds of children to kill them is no different than killing hundreds of children by dropping bombs on from the sky, or killing hundreds of children by reducing their city to rubble. As long as the US and Russia and everyone else continues to ignore this, they will continue to lose the 'war on terror'.

To get back on topic, Powell's description of what's going on as genocide seems accurate and is thus welcome, but it just amounts to more diplomatic pressure, against which the Sudanese seem quite happy to simply stall. Getting more African Union troops in must be the best immediate way forward, and the Security Council needs to throw its weight behind this kind of move straight away IMO.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

No it isn't. No matter how much you hate the US you can't possibly contend that the US soldiers in Iraq are out to deliberately murder children like the terrorists in Beslan.

Then Al Jazzera must be busy with cgi special effects showing the aftermath of indiscriminate revenge shelling of Fallujah for the past 6 months. I cant put a figure on it yet but I say that the total number of minors wiped out since the killing of the Mercenaries would be close to the Beslan figure in Fallujah alone. But there again some people would probably actually justify the Bombing of children in the same area as "terrorists" from the air is not the same as planting mines above their heads in a gymnasium.

Getting more African Union troops in must be the best immediate way forward, and the Security Council needs to throw its weight behind this kind of move straight away IMO.

I agree. Africa needs to sort out its post colonial conflicts with its own reaction force...anyway if the yanks go in it will probably end up like another Somalia all over again.

shotamoose

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, they're not accidental if you know they're going to happen. They knew when they decided to invade Iraq that they were going to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent children.

Secondly, it's not really my opinion that's important, but the opinion of the people on the ground. Somehow I don't think killing thousands of innocent people plays too well with Iraqis and Muslims around the world, no matter how 'accidental' or well-intentioned it is. Intentions don't actually matter to the people on the receiving end. It's very, very easy for Al-Qaida and their ilk to stoke the grief and anger of bereaved people into more anti-Western hatred, and that's why the war in Iraq constitutes a major strategic defeat in the 'war on terror'.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well how about the reports of US snipers shooting ambulances, women and children then.

Link
Link
Link

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

redspider

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, think about this - ask the parents of the dead children in either case whether they think that the deaths of their children were ok - you know the answer.

The problem if you dont equate 1 death because of terrorism with 1 death caused by a military attack is that you are valuing one life over another due to the ideal you are coming from. That cannot be the case. The terrorists who committed the Beslan crimes would see these child deaths as an unfortunate consequence of the ideals that they are seeking. They were desperate. They were suicide bombers/hijackers. Like I've said on other threads, they did not go into that for the fun of it.

The military invaders (US/UK) in Iraq have both admitted that collateral deaths will occur (so they have made the decision to do that, and that they see it as OK in their eyes as it is for the cause of giving the people freedom). That is wrong in itself, but when the US have lost control, when there is a local uprising, and we are not tallking about 100's of terrorists causing trouble, we are talking about 100's of thousands of people, and they indiscriminantly bomb "safe houses" killing dozens and hundreds of people, men, women and children, this is cleary wrong.

Iraq is a mess. It was predicted in advance that if the war went ahead that there was a risk that it could be a mess. The US and the UK took that risk and they have created this mess and continue in its mire everyday.

They are as guilty as the perpretrators in Beslan. In fact, you could say more guilty as undoubtadely out of the 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, there must be at least 1,000 children, not to mention th probably 10's of thousand that must be maimed and badly injured.

Neither group is morally correct!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Stabshauptmann

There is a difference between murder and manslaughter, intent does matter imo. However that the US is accidently killing civilians is wishful thinking, they know that precise attacks with infantry cost lives and that crpet bombing costs lives and they value their soldiers lives over those of foreigners (whose country they happen to be invading).

Redleslie2

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As I asked before, what about US snipers shooting at ambulances and literally anybody that went outdoors in Falluja.

Stabshauptmann

May I point out daveirl that the proportion of civilian deaths has risen in every major war since the begining of the 20th century

shotamoose

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think we're using different standards to evaluate the same actions. You're using a moral standard, in which case intentionality is the crucial factor. In that case, yes, intentionally killing is different from unintentionally killing. The main point I'm trying to make is that in the context of the strategic war on terror, what matters is the perception of people in Muslim and Arab countries.

These people have no reason and no need to believe that Bush and Blair feel morally justified in their actions. It's effectively an irrelevant consideration. But they do feel a sense of moral outrage when their innocent relatives, for example, are killed for no apparent reason by an apparently uncaring occupying force.

Well I'm afraid the situation you suggest is far to idealistic. If you follow your logic through, Wars would never be carried out because civilians will always die. What do you want people to do sit back and be killed because they can't retaliate because of the possibility of accidental deaths?

There's wars and there's the 'war on terror'. In the war on terror one of the central objectives must be to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and Arabs to the anti-fundamentalist, anti-terror cause. By killing thousands of innocent people, the US/UK are producing exactly the opposite effect. Imagine if the British had consistently reacted to IRA atrocities by dropping bombs on catholic housing estates in the North - how many new terrorists would that have created?

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"You take the number of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/021025.html

The Chechyans terrorists took over that school with the intention of killing children. The US didn't invade Iraq or even attack Fallujah with the intention of killing children.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing047.htm
"The US failed to accept that those killed in the massacre were unarmed; failed to pay compensation to the relatives of the dead or to the injured; and failed to investigate the massacre and punish those responsible."

User45701

Did any of you ever see the film the lst supper?

What happened was a bad thing yes but bad things happen its a fact of life. Humans are not a civilised species they kill oneanother its what we do, its what we have done for a very very very long time.

bonkey

Trying to get back on topic ...

Sand wrote:

Colin Powell has described the atrocities of the Sudanese Arab militias against the people of Darfur as genocide, which is pretty important as the U.N. has a duty to prevent genocides from occuring, assuming it recognises the situation in Darfur as genocide.

Yup. It is still pretty important, however, as hithertofore the US' vote on the Security Council was generally considered the crucial one in terms of determining genocide.

This has me slightly confused though. Maybe someone more up on US law may be able to correct me on this. I thought that the US' objection in previous situations from using the term "genocide" (and preferring such almost-but-not-quite-there terms as "genocidal qualities", I believe) was because its own laws would then force it to take action? I must be wrong, or something must have changed, because I did see on CNN someone saying just after Powell's statement that this did not legally oblige the US to take action. The only possible finesse I can see is that Powell declared that genocide had taken place, and may still be taking place, which means that he refrained from saying that it is ongoing and that may be the legal loophole.

But that aside...its an important step.

The U.S. is however tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq and realistically cant intervene in force in Darfur - it is calling for sanctions against the Sudanese government, but I doubt these will have the intended rapid effect as the Sudanese government does not actually command the Arab militias...it just armed and trained them and turned them loose to terrorise the people of Darfur. If it tries to take back its weapons it will probably have to pry them from the militias cold dead fingers. Faced with a choice between sanctions and a potential civil war, theyll choose the sanctions Id guess.

There has been speculation of a UN-backed action being possible where the majority of forces would actually come from the African Union nations.

Another thing to remember is that the number of required troops may not actually be that significant. From what I remember (don't have the book to hand at the moment), in "A Problem From Hell : America and the Age of Genocide" by Samantha Power, she mentions that it was reckoned that something under 5000 troops would have been more than sufficient to prevent or put a stop to the genocide in Rwanda. Only something like 1,500 would have had to have been sourced from outside Africa, if my memory of what I read serves.

Even then, it will be difficult to get measures as limited as sanctions passed as the enlightened members of the U.N. will do their best to avoid accepting responsibility for intervention in Darfur - it might set a precedent that could undermine precious national sovereignty.

Possibly more dangerously, it might set a precedent which would require wealthy nations to intervene in more costly situations even when they had no interests in the area.

Last I heard the African Union was going to send 2000 troops but this would be dependant on the permisson of the Sudanese government - i.e. no real effective deterrent to the arab militias.

I also heard that one reason that the AU wanted to go in, and why the EU etc. were standing back is that it was felt that there was less chance of the action being seen as another action in "West vs Arab", which may help achieve a resolution sooner. Maybe its just rhetoric to justify the developed nations from having to set a precedent - as you say - but there is also a certain logic to it.

The people of Darfur are suffering in ways we cannot even begin to imagine, and the best they can get from the wealthiest and most powerful nations are condemnations - but no rapid, effective action to protect their most basic human rights.

After lessons learned from debacles like Rwanda there are no more exscuses for our political leaders - The U.S. at least is talking plainly, but talk is cheap

Agreed.

. A credibility gap is emerging ( to be honest - it has always been there) between values the developed nations profess to hold dear to their hearts, and what theyre prepared to do to back them up.

I don't think its emerging - more that the awareness of them is increasing.

Does anyone else feel we should redefine our principles so we are less embarrassed by our failure to live by them?

That would more or less defeat the entire purpose of having principles.

What is more relevant, I think, is how we consider our principles to be realistically workable in the world. There is no right answer to this.

Our situation at the moment, effectively requires unanimity between the permanent and rotating members of the Security Council in order to allow intervention. This suffers because it allows individual nations - for whatever reason - to prevent "just" action for related (different moral outlook, for example) or unrelated (e.g. mercenary - no gain to be had) reasons.

We could instead allow a nation or nations to take unsanctioned action where there is a "clear" case, but how do we define clear...especially when the aim is to allow quicker intervention, which can result in someone taking action on false pretenses, with the truth only emerging after its too late?

So we could give ourselves the capability to prevent - or dramatically foreshorten - the next Darfur, but we would also open ourselves to nations committing acts of aggression under false justification, and then open ourselves either to an inability to intervene in another nation's unjust actions or to a significant increase in global instability, as nations would have the freedom to "intervene in an intervention".

(Note - while the above may seem an indirect criticism of current US actions it is not intended as such. It is a consideration of what this could allow for all nations, including those with long-standing grudges - sometimes against much weaker nations.)

Darfur needs to be resolved, but we need to find a way to do this, and to improve our ability to respond to other nations without sacrificing too much (if any) of whatever illusions of world stability we currently have.

jc

Sand

Another thing to remember is that the number of required troops may not actually be that significant. From what I remember (don't have the book to hand at the moment), in "A Problem From Hell : America and the Age of Genocide" by Samantha Power, she mentions that it was reckoned that something under 5000 troops would have been more than sufficient to prevent or put a stop to the genocide in Rwanda. Only something like 1,500 would have had to have been sourced from outside Africa, if my memory of what I read serves.

Yep - In terms of immediate security for the camps Id guess the proposed AU force of 2000 would be quite sufficient as the "thin blue line" between the refugees and the Janjaweed - assuming there given a proper mandate to shoot the Janjaweed if they come within , say 10 - 15 miles of the camps if not farther. Theres also the problem of rebel fighters hiding in the refugee camps and exploiting the refugees as well to consider.

The major problem is the speed of deployment - which given this situation in Darfur started months ago has been pathetic, especially when you consider the delay is for political reasons than for actual logistical problems -The Euro RRF was sold as being the answer to these sort of crises.

Possibly more dangerously, it might set a precedent which would require wealthy nations to intervene in more costly situations even when they had no interests in the area.

Yeah, there is that to it as well - foreign interventions cost money, sometimes international kudos, possibly lives and almost always cost votes in the next election. To a realistic politicians theres no personal profit in it for them, because the electorate does not provide them with one. We dont like genocides, but we dont like getting involved either. So a politician wouldnt like straitjacketing himself into a non-political course of action.

I also heard that one reason that the AU wanted to go in, and why the EU etc. were standing back is that it was felt that there was less chance of the action being seen as another action in "West vs Arab", which may help achieve a resolution sooner.

Possibly, but the moderate Arab press seems quite critical of the Darfur situation as well - or at least they admit theres a problem there and the Sudanese government needs to change its policies. Theyd probably get predicatably upset if the infidel Crusader forces showed up to protect the camps from the janjaweed, but developed nations *should* conduct themselves by what is the right course of action - not the course of action least likely to offend the Arab street - which has more than its own fair share of issues. I think explanations of Western inaction based on the that line of thinking would be more convenient exscuses than anything else.

So we could give ourselves the capability to prevent - or dramatically foreshorten - the next Darfur, but we would also open ourselves to nations committing acts of aggression under false justification, and then open ourselves either to an inability to intervene in another nation's unjust actions or to a significant increase in global instability, as nations would have the freedom to "intervene in an intervention".

I think we have to accept that the world is an unstable place - dirty little wars are being fought from Asia to South America and back again. The only stable locations are North America, Europe and parts of the Pacific rim. Everywhere else is either in conflict, nearing conflict, building towards conflict or dealing with the aftermath of conflict. On the other hand major conflicts between the likes of Europe, the US and Russia seem unlikely, the only other potential bad boy being China, which is steadily moving towards a more democratic and open society. Chinese nationalism may spark a major conflict in Asia/Pacific but that will occur with or without reform of the U.N. to allow for fast and effective interventions.

Given that we have to move forward on the U.N. The problem is that the U.N. cannot compel its members to any course of action, that any major intervention it decides upon is effectively dependant on the involvement of the major powers - which as a group especially are going to be quite unfavourable to idealisitic action.

To be honest, the best we can hope for is unilateralist actions by powerful states where public mood has been suddenly siezed by some idealistic spirit, possibly with a local "coalition of the willing" - Somalia and NATO actions in the Balkans to end the conflicts there may not have been ideal compared to a disneyfied utopian system that does not exist but the U.S. did get famine aid delivered to the Somalis, and even though NATO undermined the UN it brought Milo to the table at Dayton and rapidly ended another threat to the region in Kosovo. If someone had sent a few thousand troops to the refugee camps a few weeks ago, with or without U.N. approval then the situation might not be as dark as it is now.