Darfur (update)

[JoeM]

Sorry to repost, but to clarify the above. I'm thinking that we are too late for Darfur, probably financial incentives are a better tool now.

But, this is going to happen again and it could be tomorrow.


What is stopping us?

Voter opinion?
Voters in the UK are pretty much divided over wether Iraq was good or bad. Now without re-opening that can of worms, a lot of that opinion is cynicism over the motives. Here, the motives are plain.
Would it not win those voters over?

Economics?
Here in the UK we're doing pretty well given the cost of the war.
I don't know the figures involved so I can't comment.

International reputation?
Well, I think the media would portray it badly, and maybe the African Union would be against it, but so what?
The point is to keep sending out the same message - you cannot do that here, now, anytime or anyplace.

 

[Whomp]

I recently saw Paul Rusesabagina at a speaking engagement and his suggestion was not troops and not money but influence.
He called it "the puppeteers" behind the "puppets". This is what saved the people he helped in Rwanda. Contacts. In the case of Darfur I think China would be the main "puppeteer" to influence. Each of us has the capability to influence. Do it.

 

[Rambuchan]

I recently saw Paul Rusesabagina at a speaking engagement and his suggestion was not troops and not money but influence.
He called it "the puppeteers" behind the "puppets". This is what saved the people he helped in Rwanda. Contacts. In the case of Darfur I think China would be the main "puppeteer" to influence. Each of us has the capability to influence. Do it.

Very good point there Whomp.

What's the detail of China's influence? I have caught random reports on this but forget the detail.

 

[JoeM]

What do you mean? Offer big cash to infuencial men behind the scenes?

 

[Cheetah]

Or just send Rice and others over to Beijing and talk, presure and talk to them.

 

[Whomp]

What do you mean? Offer big cash to infuencial men behind the scenes?

No money. Force the developed nations away from supporting the dictators. In the case of the Chinese they are currently getting about 6% of their oil demand from Sudan. The Chinese and Indian governments are investing enormous amounts of money on a number of oil projects in the country including a pipeline. The influence I believe comes from the rest of the world pressuring them to stop supporting the dictators and start supporting the people and education.

Here's the website he recommended.

http://www.savedarfur.org/go.php?q=/HotelDarfur/HotelDarfurCampaign.html

 

[Evil Tyrant]

@Cheetah

I think I see what you were trying to say, thanks for clarifying

You are right that if they were citizens of America or a European country, the government would be obliged to intervene. As to the UN, I doubt that it will ever be more than a useless organization who's only purpose is to produce vast amounts of paperwork and to waste money. As for the UN having it's own army independant of any nation, it is in my opinion immpossible to establish. In the first place I don't think that any government is going to allow an organization over which they have no control to recruit their citizens into an army that may one day be used against them. If I was the leader of any country I certainly wouldn't. Secondly, if the UN was able to raise the troops, and the UN decided to remove a government for some reason or another, the soldiers recruited from that country might either defect, saboutage equipment, or act as spies for their homeland. Another thing is that I do not trust the UN, this being the same organization that carried out the oil-for-palaces sceme with Saddam. The concept behind the UN is also something I disaprove of, I don't think a one world order will improve things on this planet, the nation state system has it's faults, but I don't think it should be replaced with a giant world spanning organization over which no one would have any control over. The UN is essentially a utopian dream that has the potential to turn into a horrible nightmare.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Africa needs to solve its own problems. It seems everything the West does only aggravates the situation.

 

[JoeM]

Africa needs to solve its own problems. It seems everything the West does only aggravates the situation.

That's fine rhetoric, but Africa is not solving it's own problems.

Non-interventionism is, ultimately, not caring about other people.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

After watching Storyville on the Srebreniza genocide, recaps of Rwanda, Auswitzch et al. when are we going to stop saying 'Never again' and actually DO something?

I'm an interventionist and ask this question often. I wonder why no other nation will do anything while the US is strapped short in Iraq. Someone stand up and save these people?!

 

[Cheetah]

@Cheetah

I think I see what you were trying to say, thanks for clarifying

You are right that if they were citizens of America or a European country, the government would be obliged to intervene.

Hopefully I made myself somewhat clear.

Though I think I will have to disagree to some points in the rest of your post:

As to the UN, I doubt that it will ever be more than a useless organization who's only purpose is to produce vast amounts of paperwork and to waste money. As for the UN having it's own army independant of any nation, it is in my opinion immpossible to establish. In the first place I don't think that any government is going to allow an organization over which they have no control to recruit their citizens into an army that may one day be used against them. If I was the leader of any country I certainly wouldn't.

Doesn't recruits to the US army come from 50 different states? (all right, maybe a bad example. Didn't remember any else at the moment ) And previously UN peace keeping forces has been assembled from the forces of different UN member countries and joined together. With a more effective structure and permission for the UN soldiers to do more than only fire if they are fired upon would probably go a long way. I doubt it will be nessecarry for a stand-alone UN army.

Secondly, if the UN was able to raise the troops, and the UN decided to remove a government for some reason or another, the soldiers recruited from that country might either defect, saboutage equipment, or act as spies for their homeland.

That is a point, but why not simply utilise forces from countries other than the one who is going to be invaded?

Another thing is that I do not trust the UN, this being the same organization that carried out the oil-for-palaces sceme with Saddam. The concept behind the UN is also something I disaprove of, I don't think a one world order will improve things on this planet, the nation state system has it's faults, but I don't think it should be replaced with a giant world spanning organization over which no one would have any control over. The UN is essentially a utopian dream that has the potential to turn into a horrible nightmare.

I can't really decide what you should like or not, and I must admit that the UN could need some overhauling, I still see the need for it.

I don't remember where you're from, but I will assume that you are from the US. For your country a competent UN might not be so very great, as it would limit your power to go solo in the world (Ask SeluciusNictator if you want a better explaination for that. ). But for the rest of the world the UN can be a lot more helpfull.

And about a giant world spanning organisation versus nation states: would you also say that the world would be better off with independent countrys, districts and city-states? And if you believe a country is better for the people who live there, then can you not also see that a "country" spanning the entire world would also be better for the people who live there?

 

[Cheetah]

I'm an interventionist and ask this question often. I wonder why no other nation will do anything while the US is strapped short in Iraq. Someone stand up and save these people?!

I'm afraid the leaders in both the USA and Europe and the rest of the world only feels a humanitarian intervention is needed enough if there are things to gain for them or the state in doing so. It's only after a long while they feel presured enough to do something.

I'm afraid no-one will do anything untill this gets worse in some way.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I watched a News report on darfur not long ago.

Darfur is literally a grave yard being fought over by remaning forces / milita for control
It has been largely deserted

 

[IglooDame]

That's fine rhetoric, but Africa is not solving it's own problems.

Non-interventionism is, ultimately, not caring about other people.

While Interventionism is, ultimately, sticking your nose into other people's business and usually getting it bloody in the process.

 

[JoeM]

While Interventionism is, ultimately, sticking your nose into other people's business and usually getting it bloody in the process.

Too true mate. But, still worthwhile.

 

[JoeM]

...With a more effective structure and permission for the UN soldiers to do more than only fire if they are fired upon would probably go a long way.

No arguements here, but to be honest I don't think the UN is up to it - yet.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

@Cheetah

You are correct in that US army recruits come from the 50 states, but if you ask any random inhabitant of a state what his nationality is, he will respond, I'm American", not I'm [insert state here]. Their ultimate loyalty is to the United States, not to any particular state. The states are clearly subordinate to the Federal government, as was demonstrated during the civil war. On the other hand, if you go to say, Bolivia and ask them what nationality they are, they will say, I'm Bolivian, not, I'm a member of the world.

As to utilising troops not from the country being invaded, what would you do with the ones from the country? Lock them up? If they are in any sizable number, the UN could have a mutiny on their hands, which would further tie up troops from the front. The reason previous UN forces were made up of different nationalities is because their governments felt generous and donated a contingent of their soldiers to the expedition. The soldiers were there because their governments told them to go, not because they wanted to fight for the UN.

Another thing to consider is that people do not get on well with each other, just look in a history book and you will find ample evidence for this. Mankind has a habit of dividing itself into different groups, the whole topic of this thread is that one group of people in a place called Darfur, identified a group of people different from themselves and decided to destroy it. I do not see a single world nation ever happening, mankind is just too fragmented for it to work out.

I am indeed American.