Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[CBH99]

Equipment issues aside, I'm impressed Paul Martin is taking a stance, and finally chastizing the UN for not acting fast enough.

I, for one, don't mind my tax dollars being used for foreign aid, especially in places that really need it.  I'm glad to see the PM taking a firm stance on the issue, and contributing things such as money and basic military equipment.

And for all of you who have whined about still being in your OD's and never having seen a tacvest, its not like we're giving them state of the art stuff here.  Old flak jackets and kevlar helmits isn't exactly going to break us.

 

[foerestedwarrior]

And for all of you who have whined about still being in your OD's and never having seen a tacvest, its not like we're giving them state of the art stuff here.  Old flak jackets and kevlar helmits isn't exactly going to break us.

The thing is that there was no specified equipment, just what it is, "flackvests". doesnt say what ones, so this is all speculation.

 

[CBH99]

There was an article in Sun Media about a month ago, that had some specifics in terms of the equipment we were sending them.

When the initial $20 million figure was announced about a month ago (Roughly, don't chop my head off if the timing isn't exactly right) - there was also the announcement of donating some old military equipment.'

I don't have the article on hand, and I doubt I can find it seeing how it was a month ago, but in the article it stated something along the lines of:  "With the Canadian Forces now discarding their old Vietnam style flak jackets and replacing them with newer, more modern models, some of the old flak jackets will be part of the donations package.  Kevlar helmets and army boots will also be sent".

Now, keep in mind - THAT IS NOT VERBATIM.  And, Sun Media isn't the most well informed of media sources, and their writers aren't exactly the brightest crayons in the box.  But, if anybody can find the article last month re: making the announcement of $20 million in aid, some specific information was briefly mentioned when it discussed we were also donating some military kit.

Don't chop my head off for this,  I'm sure a few of you saw the article.  Sorry I can't find it and post it, and I doubt Sun Media still has it up - but rest assured, we're not about to donate state of the art personal kit (re: flak jackets) to Sudan.  From what that article mentioned, it was mainly boots, old flak jackets, and kevlar helmets.

 

[Recce41]

We do have new old vests and helmets from our first tours to Bosnia. And a lot of jungle and mk 2/3 boots that cannot be issued out.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Equipment issues aside, I'm impressed Paul Martin is taking a stance, and finally chastizing the UN for not acting fast enough.

I, for one, don't mind my tax dollars being used for foreign aid, especially in places that really need it.   I'm glad to see the PM taking a firm stance on the issue, and contributing things such as money and basic military equipment.

And for all of you who have whined about still being in your OD's and never having seen a tacvest, its not like we're giving them state of the art stuff here.   Old flak jackets and kevlar helmits isn't exactly going to break us.

Amen.  Not sure why Reservists serving in Canada exclusively need to take priority over foreign peacekeepers who will be in harm's way.  The sooner that Africa is sorted out, the better for the rest of the world.

 

[Infanteer]

I, for one, don't mind my tax dollars being used for foreign aid, especially in places that really need it.

I really am unsure of this, as it seems a good amount of "foreign aid" seems to feed neopotism in these places - with the idealists screaming that we aren't sending enough over.  Canada seemed to get through 400 years of development without foreign aid (except colonial oversight, but the developing world feels that is bad for them).

I'd rather not line the pockets of guys like Mobutu Sese Seko, Robert Mugabe and Yasser Arafat

 

[KevinB]

  Not sure why Reservists serving in Canada exclusively need to take priority over foreign peacekeepers who will be in harm's way.   The sooner that Africa is sorted out, the better for the rest of the world.

Because what happens if all of a sudden when need those reservists?

Sorry having seen African "peacekeeping" "forces" (which is an oxymoron IME) We'd do better sending a Bn BTLF GP and actually get somethign accomplished.

 

[Infanteer]

Anyone see that documentary "Cry Freetown".   Shows you the good of African "Peacekeepers".   Watching the Nigerians smash a twelve year old child's head in with rifle butts was particualrly enlightening....

 

[Cloud Cover]

We'd do better sending a Bn BTLF GP and actually get somethign accomplished.

I'm gonna regret saying this, as you [and not I  ] are the one who would have to go: the place is not worth the effort, and no good will come of us going any further than Mr. Martin is suggesting. Where is our security interest engaged in the Sudan, such that we must intervene in such a manner? Let the Africans give it the "old college try" before getting balls deep in another cess pool. Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm gonna regret saying this, as you [and not I ] are the one who would have to go: the place is not worth the effort, and no good will come of us going any further than Mr. Martin is suggesting. Where is our security interest engaged in the Sudan, such that we must intervene in such a manner? Let the Africans give it the "old college try" before getting balls deep in another cess pool. Cheers.

Yup.

As much as the idealists would like to see as throwing flowers into every shithole in the world, I can't see how a few Canadian's are going to intercede in a conflict that's been going on for centuries.

 

[Inch]

Yup.

As much as the idealists would like to see as throwing flowers into every shithole in the world, I can't see how a few Canadian's are going to intercede in a conflict that's been going on for centuries.

I concur, IIRC from my civilizations class, wasn't Africa the site of the first humans? Or at least one of the first. If they haven't gotten their shit sorted out in the last 10,000+ years, I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime (hopefully 78.2 yrs and not ended prematurely).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

IMHO, Martin is just jumping at the first new, high vis mission for his new gov't. He needs to put his footprint on the military and cement his status as new PM with the UN. It's all about him and his cronies, not us or Africa. But, as always, well thought out or not, we'll go when they send us, lacking equip, manpower and mandate. :

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Because what happens if all of a sudden when need those reservists?

You issue them out at the airport as they get off the plane, naturally...

Not that I am going to argue the futility of trying to help them get their act together over there.  We can no longer talk of the "white man's burden" but I think Infanteer et al are correct about having a "civilized man's burden". 

 

[enfield]

Africa did not just become this way on their own. True, they were undeveloped, by our standards, for much of history. This could be attributed to a number of natural factors: lack of navigable rivers, a long, straight coastline rather than inlets and penninsulas like Europe that percluded long-distance travel, the tsetse fly in the south that prevented livestock, and huge swathes of jungle and desert.
Their recent woes could be attributed to Europe's very first foray into Common Foreign and Security Policy, the division of Africa in the late 1800s. No state in sub-Saharan Africa represents a reality on the ground. All of the borders are arbitrary, without reflecting ethnic groups, geographic, resource, or population realities. This makes sustaining such nations a little difficult.

Africa's modern era began with European states raping them, without providing for local education or training. Surprise, surprise, without trainined legislators, police, officers, bureaucrats, etc., after independence in the 50's and 60's, these countries went to hell. Yes, Britain was better and provided some degree of transition to independence, which is why ex-Brit colonies do a bit better. But, all in all, these countries were raped for 200 years and then left on the side of the road. Since then, we used them as pawns in the Cold War board game, sustaining conflicts that killed millions, again, hardly conducive to creating functioning socities.

Do we have a responsibility for this? No, not as Canadians, and not as Westerners. And, on the scale of things, I would place responsibility at 50-50, locals and foreigners, because local nepotism, corruption, and all that have reversed a lot of progress. History is history, but don't assume that Africans chose to be like this or that they aren't working hard to improve their condition.

So, why did we intervene in Yugo? Rwanda? Somalia? East Timor? Haiti? Afghanistan? What makes them more valued than Sudanese? What put East Timor in our national interest and not Sudan? I agree that a few thousand African 'peacekeepers' are probably not the answer - witness their successes in Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast. But, I don't see how Canada - or better yet, Europe - contributing some forces would hurt so much. I know the Belgian, Spanish, German, Swedish, Irish, etc, armies aren't too busy right now....  

 

[Cloud Cover]

All of those interventions pre date our national security policy. Our national security interests are not engaged in the Sudan. There is no reason to go off half cocked and intervene in what will only turn out to be another "invasion", as the Sudan is not a failed state and has allies might that might object, to put things mildly. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, and arguably Haiti and East Timor were failed states. When we have a modernized foreign policy that envisions such interventions, then off we [you?] go. Lots of luck. But right now, all we have is a crude NSP and a rather pie in the sky set of statements from foreign affairs.

Our national interest is engaged in Afghanistan because our sworn enemy, who attacked our continent and killed our citizens, and some of our soldiers, is there. 

Kosovo might be the best template for action in the Sudan. Note the potential intensity of that conflict when it got underway. Are we ready for that again?

 

[KevinB]

Kosovo was another UN/NATO failure - too little to late.

Personally it bugs the shit out of me that we place higher value on the lives of non-Africans than we do Africas - it smacks of rascism.

Why did we go into the FYR?

Canada wants to be a "Peacekeeping" boyscout then we should vote with our actions not shout off our mouths.  go do something useful for the sake of goodness not oil or whatever the fuck else.

Failing that we should get off our ass and into Iraq - shit or get off the pot.

 

[Infanteer]

Personally it bugs the shit out of me that we place higher value on the lives of non-Africans than we do Africas - it smacks of rascism.

As much as I hate to say it, human behaviour, like other species, are predisposed towards the notion of inclusive fitness - we have an ingrained tendency to seek kinship selection.   Brother over cousin, family over tribe, tribe over outsiders, etc, etc.   (Read about it in the Ghiglieri book I recommended, quite fascinating).   When extended to the global arena, the principle means that the backyard of Europe takes precedence over a landlocked country in Africa.   In human nature, racism (if you want to call it that), xenophobia and nepotism are the rule rather than the exception.

As well, there are some very clear geopolitical reasons why we committed ourselves (to the point of exhaustion) to the FYR's and left Africa to the lex talionis.   The stability of Europe is a vital interest to Canada and the rest of the West.   The last time we let things in that area get out of control, we ended up in the stalemate of the trenches for 4 years.   These interests in the Balkans are still around today; the Croats, Serbs, and Muslims (and all the states and factions that back them) find the Balkans a convenient place to further their goals.

We tackled the Balkans before it led to another general conflagration.   Quite frankly, all the Sudans, the Rwandas, the Uganadas, the Somalias and the Ethiopias are on the periphery of the show.   Although they may get the attention on some Christian ministry program or on U2's latest album, realistic imperative will relegate them, and the idealism that springs from the constant human tragedies played out, to play the background noise to the human condition.

 

[RDA]

I don't see how Canada - or better yet, Europe - contributing some forces would hurt so much.

The situation in Sudan is very fragile and complicated.   I am no expert on the topic, so I will not even attempt to explain it myself as I would most certainly butcher the facts.   If you really want to understand why the international community seems reluctant to get involved, I suggest you do some reading.   There is plenty of "open source" analysis on the subject available all over the internet.

Here are two articles you might find insightfull:

ISN Summary:   "Sudan on the brink of collapse.   The only viable alternative to el-Bashir's control of Khartoum is the Islamic PNC, an outcome unacceptable to the US and EU For this reason, the Western powers will not lean too hard on Khartoum."
Full text:    http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=218&language_id=1

ISN Summary:     "Jihadist overtones in Sudan.   However the crisis resolves itself in Darfur, one net beneficiary will be militant Islamists, both in Sudan and the wider region. They will be able to claim to have seen the "Crusader wolves" at the door, and will have no difficulty in finding a receptive audience for their message."
Full text:   http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=403&issue_id=3049&article_id=2368407

Take care


[Edited to correct URL...]

 

[bossi]

Talk about getting off on the wrong foot ...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/25/martin-sudan.html

PM's convoy strikes girl in Sudan

Last Updated Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:38:27 EST
KHARTOUM, SUDAN - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he feels badly that his convoy struck and injured a young girl as it was leaving a displaced person's camp near Khartoum, Sudan on Thursday.

The girl was taken to hospital by ambulance and X-rayed but has reportedly not suffered serious injury.

"I feel very, very badly as I know we all do about what happened," Martin said.

"She's received stitches on her tongue. She's okay and I am going to have an opportunity to see her," he said.

Melanie Gruer, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office said, "the girl was hit by one of the pickup trucks carrying Sudanese guards who were protecting the prime minister," the Canadian Press reported.

She said the convoy was travelling at high speed on narrow dusty roads

"They couldn't see her because of the dust. She's been X-rayed â “ nothing broken. She has a slight injury to her mouth," Gruer said, adding the girl would be kept in hospital for 24 hours for observation after having stitches in her tongue.

She was apparently hit as the crowd pressed forward toward the vehicles as they left the camp.

The injury occurred just after the prime minister had delivered a speech offering a message of hope to those living in the camp, home to more than 200,000 people.

"I want to say to you, because some of you were born in this camp in a time of war, you should know that war is not the norm," Martin said. "Peace is the norm."

While at the camp, Martin met children, delivered schoolbooks, crayons and other supplies, and danced with the children.

He also met with Sudanese officials, pledging that Canada will offer about $17 million for peacekeeping equipment and food. Martin arrived in Sudan on Thursday as part of his 10-day tour of Africa, Chile and Brazil.

The fight between government-backed Arab militias and African rebel groups in the western region of Darfur has driven almost two million people from their homes. The United Nations estimates at least 70,000 people have died since March as a result of poor conditions in refugee camps.

 

[Bograt]

The debate thus far presented on intervining in Sudan has posed the "white man's burdon" versus "national interests." I fear that in this particular case neither argument is particular valid. The Prime Minister is trying to reposition Canada and other middle powers as significant players on the world stage. Martin is toughting the "Responsibility to Act" doctrine. A moralist policy based on "doing the right thing."

Unfortunately, in this particular case all that Canada can offer is surplus equipment, pleasant recommendations ("you must end corruption....") and moral outrage. I don't know what is more repugnant- the self satisfaction of the Canadian policy WOGs, or the sudanese girl waving the Canadian flag from her refugee camp.

My 2 cents.