Call the U.S. Cavalry!

TomF

"The U.S. Cavalry"

This is an excellent column, and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt (except, perhaps to the hopelessly un- or left-hinged) that outside of the sphere of influence of the U.S., the world is a very dangerous place for people who wish to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the U.N. Charter. Certainly neither the U.N. nor the Irish armed forces are going to do much to help anyone in Darfur.

"Darfur, the western province [of Sudan] that is the world's latest killing field.
...
"Once again the world is calling on the U.S. to stop a horror that the United Nations and everybody else have failed to act against. The killing of black Muslim tribesmen by government-backed Arab militias has been going on since February of last year. But while the world's moralists are in full cry about the threat of 'another Rwanda,' no one sees fit to actually do something. No one, that is, except the U.S.
...
"The ostensible reason for Europe's reluctance to pressure Sudan on Darfur is fear of torpedoing a peace deal between Khartoum and the south, where government forces have been slaughtering and enslaving Christian and animist Africans. But Europe's concern is rich with hypocrisy. That conflict, in which some two million people have died, has been going on for 21 years--while Europe watched.
...
"The lesson of Sudan is that the world is a Hobbesian place outside the U.S. sphere of influence. Sudan's social contract is straight out of 'Leviathan'; citizens are guaranteed security only if they abide by the absolute authority of a monarch.
...
"It is fashionable these days to express distaste for American 'unilateralism' and 'hegemony.' The unfolding catastrophe in Darfur offers a chilling view of what the alternative really looks like."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005308

gaelic cowboy

Yeah heard about that a while ago terrible Sudan should be severly punished for this is just blatant etnic cleansing.:mad:

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt (except, perhaps to the hopelessly un- or left-hinged) that outside of the sphere of influence of the U.S., the world is a very dangerous place for people who wish to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the U.N. Charter.

I guess I'm hopelessly un- or left-hinged then, because this demonstrates to me that there is at least one place in the world which is a very dangerous place. It does not demonstrate anything about the relevance of the US sphere of influence, because you haven't shown that there no dangerous places within said sphere of influence, nor have you shown that this is somehow indicative of a trend, rather than being an isolated case.

But hey...I guess it must be my flaky logic that doesn't make sense.

jc

mike65

Just to pick up the Cavarly theme, if the States did interveen in Sudan you can of course imagine the indignant ****e they would be met with internationaly.

Meanwhile the Arab/Islamic world stands by silently.

This from Lebonese Daily Star -

There are a number of festering wounds marking the collective body of the Arab world, and not all of them can conveniently be attributed to the aggression of outsiders. Thus, while the ongoing tragedy and disgrace of Palestine and the humiliation of Iraq are well-known international issues and do indeed owe much to foreign interference, there are other sores that are at least as bad and that are entirely homegrown. One of these sores is Darfur in western Sudan.

Mass displacements and killings have been carried out there against the indigenous African population by proxy tribal militias allied to Khartoum. At least 200,000 people have fled to neighboring Chad, and around 30,000 have been killed in what amounts to an unofficial but systematic program of ethnic cleansing.

International neglect led to near-genocide a decade ago in Rwanda, while NATO went to war in Kosovo in 1999 for the sake of a few hundred thousand refugees. While the United States is considering formally labeling the Darfur crisis as a genocide in progress, the world - the world beyond the Arab world that is - is justified in asking the following question: "What are the Arabs doing about this atrocity in their own back yard?"

The answer, of course - as usual - is nothing. At the conclusion of this year's annual Arab League summit just a few short weeks ago, a statement was issued. On Sudan, the statement "reaffirm(ed) ... the Arab states' solidarity with the sisterly Republic of Sudan and their keenness to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty and reinforce all peace initiatives started by the Sudanese government with the international and regional parties." Many fine words on "human rights" were also committed to paper in the summit statement.

It is time for a word of advice for the Arab League: We are sick of vacuous statements - the time for action is now. In fact, the time for action was yesterday, last week, last month, last year, last decade.

It is also time for the wealthy Arab oil-producing states to contribute to a solution to Darfur in the interests of regional stability.

While Arab leaders and governments do nothing, Israel will remain in Palestine, predatory super-states will always seize an opportunity to further their interests at Arab expense, and there will always be tyrants like Saddam Hussein terrorizing their own people.

Mike.

Hobbes

The US wont intervene as they are currently stretched with troops in Iraq/Afganistan.

But your points are a bit skewed. They fail to mention that both sides have been accused of the same thing, and that the UN have in fact gotten involved.

Sand

Srebinica, Rwanda, and now Dafur. Dont hold your breath for anyone to do anything useful here - not until the "final solution" to the problem has been enacted. Then well have solemn criticisms and heartfelt soul searching, never again and all that.

As Hobbes said, whilst the US getting involved and warning the Sudanese to rein in their gangs is better than nothing, they are already busy in Iraq and Afghanistan so theyre pretty much bluffing - and the Sudanese probably know it. This is where the Europeans should logically step in but their militaries are so run down and paralysed that NATO literally has to beg for troops to fufill obligations in Afghanistan as it is, let alone the EU organising a force to go to Sudan to protect refugee camps and open supply routes there. If they threatened to do so as well, then theyd be bluffing as well - theyre not able to and theyre not willing to.

Effectively those people are screwed and they better just hurry up dying and get off the news because its making everyone else feel a bit weird about it.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Srebinica, Rwanda, and now Dafur. Dont hold your breath for anyone to do anything useful here - not until the "final solution" to the problem has been enacted. Then well have solemn criticisms and heartfelt soul searching, never again and all that.

Not to rain on the right-wing parade, but Rwanda could have been stopped by the UN, had the US not intervened. And the policy that caused that intervention is still in place, so Dafur may become another example of Clinton's legacy, rather than a reason not to have a UN.

chewy

but Rwanda could have been stopped by the UN, had the US not intervened

how so im not familar with the situation?

Sparks

Originally posted by chewy
how so im not familar with the situation?

In summary:
The genocide began in Rwanda, there were already UN peacekeeping forces deployed there who felt they could stop the slaughter, they requested permission to do so from the UN headquarters, but the US blocked the UNSC from giving permission to do so. When it was finally agreed to do something, thousands were already dead. And the US then prevaricated further, with delays like agreeing to send in APCs and then not sending them for several weeks because of disagreements on the correct colour of paint to paint them with. (Not kidding). Further, no US statement on Rwanda ever used the exact word "genocide" despite all reports stating clearly that that's what was happening, because the US was bound by treaty to prevent genocide.

The cause of all of this was Presidential Policy Document 21, which summarises as saying that no US troops will be committed to UN peacekeeping in cases where no US interest is directly at risk. This was signed after US soldiers were killed in Somalia, and is still in force, and is the real reason Clinton deserved to be hounded from office, to be honest.

A quick google should give more detailed accounts.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sparks
In summary:
The genocide began in Rwanda,

There is no genocide. The term came from.. "The scale of the crisis has led to warnings of an imminent disaster, with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that the risk of genocide is "frighteningly real" in Darfur. "

Better information here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Sparks

Originally posted by Hobbes
There is no genocide.

In Darfur. But we were talking about the genocide that happened in Rwanda.

Sand

Well, I think Sparks has brought up Presidential Policy Document 21 before in another Boards thread, where we learned that it was not confirmed to exist, and that the reputed document was actually slightly different to what Sparks claimed it was. I would advise anyone interested in it to seek it out, you can find the document online - there are links in that boards thread - and read it. You may find the devil is in the details rather than the 3rd party summary.

Firstly Sparks, I never mentioned the UN. It should be clear by now that the UN are social workers, not the cops. You dont send them to deal with serious crime, you send them to file a report about it. Blame the members, or blame the organisation - but it doesnt come into it when you need to prevent genocide.

To go off topic on to Rwanda - there was 2500 Peacekeepers in Rwanda when the massacres began. They did nothing. Their mandate did not allow them to offer aid, assistance or protection to the victims of genocide as the UNs orders prevented them from doing so.

10 Belgian Peacekeepers guarding the Rwandan President ( The UN always looks out for the sovereign government after all ) were abducted, tortured, mutilated and murdered. The UN/Belgian response was to retreat from Rwanda. Not that it made much difference to the Rwandans getting murdered. The UN did feck all to help them anyway when they were there.

And yes, Saint Clinton the peacemaker was unwilling to foot the bill for peacekeeping operations with no real exit strategy. And he should be criticised for that. No one else stepped up to foot the bill tho afaik.

Did the UN stop the killing in the end?

No, agreement couldnt be reached, so the French went in on their own after months of dilly dallying and stabilised the situation to allow the social workers ( the UN ) to come in later and protect the peace. Incidentially, several French allies in the region were accused of plotting the genocide in some accounts of the massacres.

The UN can only go into a country with the permisson of the sovereign government of that country. The UN forces in Rwanda could not intefere with government forces, even when they were killing civillians before their eyes. A Zambian UN unit had to sit by in Rwanda as the government forces inflicted untold misery on refugees right outside the Zambian barracks.

The UN isnt even worth mentioning.

The best hope for Dafur is that some warmongering, unilateralist, rogue nation with a large military and indifference for world opinion whilst guided by a long, liberal tradition and rule of law gets involved. Of course, rogue nation number one is busy so, like I said they just better hurry up dying because no one else is going to arrive in time to do anything other than bury them and build a memorial.

mike65

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

No document 21 but 1-16. Is this part of the same material?

Mike.

TomF

Maybe it's "Presidential Decision Directive 25". There is quite a bit of chatter about that directive to be found on the Net.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
To go off topic on to Rwanda - there was 2500 Peacekeepers in Rwanda when the massacres began. They did nothing. Their mandate did not allow them to offer aid,
assistance or protection to the victims of genocide as the UNs orders prevented them from doing so.

Correct, and when they sought a change in those orders, it was the US who were the primary force in making sure said orders were not changed.

You can blame the UN soldiers for obeying orders. You can blame the UN for actually trying to stick to its charter and not simply deciding to take unilateral action. Or you can blame the actual member nations who stood by and actively prevented the mandate from being changed which would have allowed help to be given.

I blame all three, but you - Sand - appear to firmly place the blame on the second group only.

10 Belgian Peacekeepers guarding the Rwandan President ( The UN always looks out for the sovereign government after all ) were abducted, tortured, mutilated and murdered. The UN/Belgian response was to retreat from Rwanda.

When the Belgians "retreated" it was because it was clear that they could no longer serve the mandate they were there for, and that the mandate was not going to be changed. Yes, perhaps they should have been bolder, stuck two fingers at the US and said "screw your vision of how the world should be run, we want to help these people and won't let your intransigence stop us", but just how likely do you think that was?

Not that it made much difference to the Rwandans getting murdered.

Apply that criticism to the US and their "what colour should the APCs be before we can send them" and you'll see that its even more damning that when applied to the nation who pulled their soldiers out because they could legally do nothing except get killed otherwise.

The UN can only go into a country with the permisson of the sovereign government of that country.

Not quite true, if the actions they go in to prevent are classed as genocide. Again, though, note the reticence of the US (most notably, but there were others) in allowing this term to be used for exactly this reason. They didn't want it called genocide because then they would have been obliged to go in there.

The UN forces in Rwanda could not intefere with government forces, even when they were killing civillians before their eyes.

Yes. Its an uncomfortable reality behind the mechanics that actually permits international peace-keeping to work.

jc

Sand

All fine point Bonkey but it all boils down to the simple fact that the UN doesnt matter, its not going to save anyone.

You can blame the members and the organisation as I said. Rwanada was on the Security Council that deliberated the response to the massacres. You can blame the US, but they werent alone, they didnt veto any resolution afaik and no one felt strongly enough to push it, despite France and Germany being willing to do so recently. You can blame the UNs charter which holds the rights of states over and beyond the rights of human beings. You can blame the soldiers on the ground - nuremberg principles dicatate that they had a right and even a duty to ignore their mandate. But I dont want to do that because whilst wed all like to think wed do the right thing in their shoes, we werent there so we cant say how wed react. When the Serbs took Srebinica they videoed the surrender of the UN commander to show their friends how afraid he was that he and his men would be the next to be driven off in buses to be executed.

We can blame anyone and everyone. But at the end of the day who stopped the madness in the Balkans? NATO. Who stopped the madness in Rwanda? The French. Whose going to stop the atrocities in Darfur and Chechnya? It wont be the UN thats for sure. We might as well blame the samaritans.

"Unilateral war mongering rogue states" are the only thing that can save the people of Darfur. Like I said, its too bad the US is tied up. Luckily us Europeans can ask "Why arent the US doing something about this!", rather than "Why arent we doing something about this!"

If the US didnt exist wed have to invent it.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Who stopped the madness in Rwanda? The French.

I think it was the Rwandan Patriotic Front actually. A French force went and set up a 'safe area' in which people continued to be murdered.

Rwanda was indeed a failure of the present UN system. The obvious solution as far as I can see is not 'no UN system' but a much stronger UN system - i.e. a large standing UN army which can be deployed where necessary.

If the UN didn't exist we'd have to invent it. We need to match the principles and ideals of the present system with the resources required to back them up. Darfur is an excellent example - it was UN staff who first alerted the world to what was going on, and UN staff who have been among the most vocal about what needs to be done. But there's not much they can do without an army. So let's give them one.

Of course, the US and all the other big boys don't want them to have an army because they like wielding the biggest sticks themselves.

shotamoose

Just to add to my previous post: the French government's conduct throughout the Rwandan genocide was completely despicable - they were actively complict, as opposed to the passive inaction of others. Details here .

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
All fine point Bonkey but it all boils down to the simple fact that the UN doesnt matter, its not going to save anyone.

No, that's not what it boils down to. What it boils down to is that the UN is not there to dominate any country, including the US, and that that principle doesn't always allow for the best course of action.

If the US didnt exist wed have to invent it.

We did invent it. As to whether we'd have to invent it again, that's like saying we would have to invent the gun after developing kevlar...

Moriarty

Sparks, was it you that was saying that Ireland has no need for a military in one of those threads a few weeks ago about f16s etc for the air corps?

Do you not recognise the hypocrisy of berating the US from not wanting to become involved in these sorts of situations when, excluding the UK, europe couldn't even field an effective army to prevent these sorts of situations even if the political will was there for it (which it clearly isn't on the continent in any case)?

How can we complain about US (in-)action when were doing even less than them?

Sparks

Originally posted by Moriarty
Sparks, was it you that was saying that Ireland has no need for a military in one of those threads a few weeks ago about f16s etc for the air corps?

No, it was me saying we don't require an air force as the only real and valid threat faced by the state is from terrorism.

Do you not recognise the hypocrisy of berating the US from not wanting to become involved in these sorts of situations when, excluding the UK, europe couldn't even field an effective army to prevent these sorts of situations even if the political will was there for it (which it clearly isn't on the continent in any case)?

No, because hypocracy involves the same philosophical stance being criticised or praised depending on the situation and the involvement of the observer in same; whereas what you've just described is two different situations. I criticise illegal invasions or the tacit acceptance of genocides for political reasons - there's no hypocracy in doing so while saying that we do not need an air force at home. After all, the anti-terrorist unit of the Irish army has a very good record overall in UN operations and is needed by the State as well.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
No, it was me saying we don't require an air force as the only real and valid threat faced by the state is from terrorism.

Fair enough, appologies.

Originally posted by Sparks
No, because hypocracy involves the same philosophical stance being criticised or praised depending on the situation and the involvement of the observer in same; whereas what you've just described is two different situations.

So lets see. Europeans are criticising the US for not acting decisively in cases like Darfur. These same people appear to be blind to the complete lack of action by their own governments, but that's OK because this is somehow a different situation. (We can't afford an army? Europe is exempt from any responsibilitys outside it's geographical fiefdom? What?)

I'm seeing a pretty clear case of people in glass houses throwing stones from where I'm standing.

Originally posted by Sparks
I criticise illegal invasions or the tacit acceptance of genocides for political reasons - there's no hypocracy in doing so while saying that we do not need an air force at home.

No there isn't, but there is when you seem to believe that the burden of action rests soley or overwhelmingly on the US.

chewy

moriaty - the orginal posting suggested that the us were the only capable of sorting out these situations that what people were responding too








i think most people do/should realise the europe leaders are as lame ass as the the us and in the context of the iraq france and germany were only acting in their own interests although it isn't spoken about as much

Sand

Rwanda was indeed a failure of the present UN system. The obvious solution as far as I can see is not 'no UN system' but a much stronger UN system - i.e. a large standing UN army which can be deployed where necessary.

That will never happen. The US and Europe and other Western states will never allow themselves to be dictated to by 3rd world states - many of which bear little resemblance to liberal democracies with rule of law anyway. Does it not bother you that a Rwanda was deciding on what should happen in Rwanda? That so many dictatorships are given just as much legitimacy by the UN as say, Switzerland? The entire underlying concepts of the UN are totally insane.

No, that's not what it boils down to. What it boils down to is that the UN is not there to dominate any country, including the US, and that that principle doesn't always allow for the best course of action.

So its not going to allow for the best course of action when required - i.e. it doesnt matter. Its great for building a bridge, or sinking a well, or training the local police ( and this is all vital stuff ). But when rapid and strong reaction is required to uphold some of the most basic human rights, its not going to be a factor. It doesnt matter.