You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa Horn
UN Shill -- Darfur: Support An African Solution
2006-10-07
The Best Way to Clear Up This Mess Is Not More Military Intervention, but a Return to the Peace Table.
By Gwynne Dyer
[UN Tool]

On one issue, at least, George Bush and George Clooney are in perfect accord. What is happening in Darfur is genocide and something must be done.

But it isn't genocide and nothing will be done.

The end of September deadline for putting a 20,000-strong force of United Nations troops into Darfur, including large numbers of soldiers drawn from NATO countries, was always a fantasy. The deadline has passed without any softening of the Sudanese government's total rejection of the plan and no Western troops are heading for Sudan anytime soon.

Instead, the existing force of 7,000 troops from African Union countries that tries to protect the refugee camps, under-equipped and poorly supplied though it is, will stay at least until the end of the year.

This is the best available outcome and may even save tens of thousands of lives, especially if the Western countries now give the African Union force the money, fuel, night-flying helicopters and other resources it needs to do the job.

It will continue to be grim in Darfur, but at least the West has avoided a military intervention in Africa that would have made the Somalia debacle in 1992-93 look like a success story.
Posted by:.com

#3  Sorry, SH. Gwynne Dyer is a guy. A left-wing tool, but a guy.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-10-07 23:36  

#2  Gwynne gets most of the history right but still gets the prescription wrong. Peace negotiations won't work because there's no peace to negotiate.

The southerners managed to get an agreement because, in the end, both sides had something they wanted -- oil money -- and no way to force the other to back off completely. The central government couldn't defeat the southerners militarily, and the southerners couldn't keep the central government from invading and killing lots of people. So they struck a deal (we'll see if it holds).

The people in Darfur have something the central government wants -- land, and maybe oil underneath -- but they don't have any way to keep Khartoum out. It's all one-sided right now, so Khartoum has absolutely no incentive to 'negotiate' a 'peace' agreement.

The AU troops are basically useless. Arming them better makes them better armed, useless troops. And we've already seen with Lebanon and Afghanistan that the Old Europe portion of NATO is feckless, cowardly and, well, useless. They can't be bothered to send troops to Kosovo let alone Darfur.

The solutions are two: 1) the people of Darfur surrender and get stomped or 2) the people of Darfur get some guns, training and moxie and defend themselves to the point that the Janjaweed backs off. Then Khartoum will have a reason to talk 'peace'.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-10-07 13:24  

#1  This is the best available outcome and may even save tens of thousands of lives, especially if the Western countries now give the African Union force the money, fuel, night-flying helicopters and other resources it needs to do the job.

As far as I know there are no night-flying helicopters, only night flying pilots.

I actually didn't read the article. After she explained that it wasn't genocide I knew I didn't have to care anymore.
Posted by: Super Hose   2006-10-07 12:53  

00:00