Irish troops could go to Darfur John O'Shea wants to invade and occupy Sudan

lostexpectation

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2141957,00.html

Irish troops will be deployed in the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan.

Irish government sources confirmed this weekend that up to 200 Irish soldiers would join the newly proposed UN multi-national force to a region of Africa which the United States and international aid agencies say is being subjected to genocide.

The Irish contingent is likely to be sent to Darfur at the end of this year or early in 2008.

this seems fairly definite? but I not sure we have the soldiers do we ? I mean I thought the main problem with the AU is hardware and logistics and we don't have much to add

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=25648-qqqx=1.asp
this is a good article which says they _could_ be going... now they're finished in liberia

mike65

Rofles! Talk about a loaded headline. I have visions of John O'Shea in fatigues
with a whip giving his final pep-talk to the troops as they are lined up at the landing strip!

lostexpectation maybe you should edit the topic line to reflect the actual content of your post.

Mike.

Villain

LOL what Mike said!

Moriarty

I wonder what changed vis a vi China and the other security council members for them to reverse position on the UN peacekeeping force.

Hopefully a robust command will be installed which can actually protect civilians in the area and deal with the militas and central government. The last thing that's needed down there is another fiasco along the lines of Srebrenica.

lostexpectation

my headline is the only interpretation you can take from what john o'shea and his ilk have said in the guardian article and he's been saying it for years, im not a big fan of peacemakers forces but I think they've done pretty well to get this bigger force in there, they can only do what sudan agrees to otherwise its invasion. john oshea keeps saying we should ignore what sudan government wants and go in with a us/uk force that occupy and defeat the entire sudanese army and population and we've that doesn't work out well for anybody.

here is my headline in john osheas words

Will they have permission to disarm the Janjaweed and take action against the Sudanese air force when they launch bombing raids on the villages of Darfur?

http://www.goalusa.org/

http://www.interaction.org/newswire/detail.php?id=5418
The UK and US Must Immediately Take Unilateral Action to Prevent Further Tragedy in Darfur

GOAL USA - NATO's Reluctance to Deploy Troops to Darfur Region is a Missed Opportunity
http://www.interaction.org/newswire/detail.php?id=4803


The US has supported a Security Council resolution to send 17,000 soldiers and 3,000 police to the region, but Sudan has vowed to go to war if a single United Nations troop sets foot in the region. It has likened a UN presence in Darfur to a Western invasion, and vowed to emulate Hizballah in Lebanon and smash any incoming force. Khartoum is sending 26,000 of its own troops to Darfur, and the build up could spark a human rights catastrophe unless UN peacekeeping troops are immediately sent to the region.

“GOAL is calling on the Bush Government to be prepared to send in the US army as a last resort. The public must be at a loss as to why the lives of the vulnerable in the Lebanon are worth more than those in Darfur, where a third of the population have been displaced owing to this three year conflict,” adds O’Shea.
http://www.interaction.org/newswire/detail.php?id=5353

Manic Moran

Depends on if they've decided to send a peacekeeping force, or a peace-enforcing force. The former is far more common, but the UN requires the approval of both parties. The latter is more interventionist and unilateral, a-la Congo or even Korea, and is much less frequent. However, I'm sure the distinction is lost on most media.

NTM

OS119

isn't the cornerstone of this 'force' the crucial difference between a Chapter 6 Force - effectively a monitor and reporting force where the UN acts as a liason and 'honest-broker' force to smooth out any problems that occur within a larger scale, mutually agreed plan, and a Chapter 7 Force where the UN force enforces an UN plan that may or may not have the agreement of one or more of the protagonists.

Chpater 6. waste of time.

Chapter 7. waste of time unless you've got the troops - and will - to really enforce the plan.

lostexpectation

OS119 wrote:

Chpater 6. waste of time.

Chapter 7. waste of time unless you've got the troops - and will - to really enforce the plan.

well this is supposed to be chapter 7 without economic sanctions

fly_agaric

Moriarty wrote:

The last thing that's needed down there is another fiasco along the lines of Srebrenica.

But that's already happened "down there" hasn't it?

lostexpectation wrote:

they can only do what sudan agrees to otherwise its invasion. john oshea keeps saying we should ignore what sudan government wants and go in with a us/uk force that occupy and defeat the entire sudanese army and population and ... that doesn't work out well for anybody.

That's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it? You are suggesting when it comes to some sort of military action it is either invade and occupy + topple the government or do nothing at all (well, nothing that the government busy killing some of it's own people/standing by while its allies kill them hasn't given permission for).

If the US/UK were itching to attack someone I think a Darfur peace-enforcing mission might have been a better (and less costly) use of their armies than invading Iraq.

LostinBlanch

Moriarty wrote:

I wonder what changed vis a vi China and the other security council members for them to reverse position on the UN peacekeeping force.

AFAIK it's pressure from Hollywood types like George Clooney et al who have joined the Darfur campaign and are calling for movement on this. They are starting to mention words that scare Beijing like Boycott and Olympics

Beijing wants the Olympics to go smoothly and won't want to jeopardise this. Hence the change in stance on Darfur.

AbusesToilets

I'm reading Martin Meredith's book,State Of Africa, at the mo (excellent book btw) and given the history of the regime in charge of Sudan,a mission to topple and depose the government wouldn't be that bad of an idea. At least compared to the murder and famine that the Sudanese government has unleashed on the people there.

lostexpectation

LostinBlanch wrote:

AFAIK it's pressure from Hollywood types like George Clooney et al who have joined the Darfur campaign and are calling for movement on this. They are starting to mention words that scare Beijing like Boycott and Olympics

Beijing wants the Olympics to go smoothly and won't want to jeopardise this. Hence the change in stance on Darfur.

I really don't think its about hollywood, the new draft resolution from the UK and france took out threats of economic sanctions (which may have effected chinas dealings with them) and therefore china allowed it pass in the security council. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2199289.ece


anything other then another iraq (with haliburton taking over) is better then that choice, I know it hasn't happened yet, and they've already tried and failed but they could sort it out themselves...

DadaKopf

Good to know John O'Shea is still spouting his racist nonsense.

Personally, I don't think a military intervention by a Western power is the solution. It would have a completely counter-productive effect because it'd politicise the police force, and undermine political unity across sub-Saharan Africa.

More imaginative solutions are needed, but I still recommend strengthening the AU force, combined with political pressure where it hurts: China is the key.

This article by reknowned African scholar Mahmood Mamdani really hits the nail on the head, IMHO.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

oscarBravo

Interesting link, DK - I've bookmarked that one.

lostexpectation

DadaKopf wrote:

Good to know John O'Shea is still spouting his racist nonsense.


This article by reknowned African scholar Mahmood Mamdani really hits the nail on the head, IMHO.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

how about a large force of chinese peacekeepers they're alread in haiti and lebanon I don't it would be good idea but but I wonder how nato would feel about it.

Zambia

We all know nothing will be done till everyone is sick of killing each other over there.

Then all concerned nations will all discuss what should have happened once we see the death toll.

Just like Rwanda

Mick86

Wasn't John O'Shea the lad that said sending Irish troops to Darfur would be like sending the Boy Scouts over the top on the Somme. You'll have to invade the place yourself John because neither Britain or the US has the troops to send and African troops are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

Wasn't John O'Shea the lad that said sending Irish troops to Darfur would be like sending the Boy Scouts over the top on the Somme. You'll have to invade the place yourself John because neither Britain or the US has the troops to send and African troops are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

what the point of slagggin off the AU troops they havn't got paid why should they bother

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

what the point of slagggin off the AU troops they havn't got paid why should they bother

Even if they did get paid they would still be useless.

Not that it matters anyway. The UN doesn't really care much about Darfur.

Sand

Hope the UN force brings enough shovels. After 3 or 4 years theres going to be a lot of graves needing digging and Sudan wont allow them to do much else.

Personally, I don't think a military intervention by a Western power is the solution. It would have a completely counter-productive effect because it'd politicise the police force, and undermine political unity across sub-Saharan Africa.

Yeah, military intervention by the "international community" 3 or 4 years ago might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives but, it might have politicised the force and undermine the political unity thats marked the response to the Darfur conflict. And thats got to be the priority - right?

Never again eh?

DadaKopf

'Never again' indeed. Never again in Democratic Republic of Congo, or Zimbabwe, or somewhere else.

The peace process in southern Sudan has been successful without UN intervention, so why not Darfur? There has to be mid-way solution: an AU force protecting civilians, while pursuing a realistic non-military solution.

I don't think anyone on this thread is kidding themselves. Geopolitics is about power and interests, and that's the deciding factor.

jmayo

DadaKopf wrote:

'Never again' indeed. Never again in Democratic Republic of Congo, or Zimbabwe, or somewhere else.

The peace process in southern Sudan has been successful without UN intervention, so why not Darfur? There has to be mid-way solution: an AU force protecting civilians, while pursuing a realistic non-military solution.

I don't think anyone on this thread is kidding themselves. Geopolitics is about power and interests, and that's the deciding factor.

Doesn't John O'Shea have Kerry connections?
The last time a Kerryman (Kitchener) was in charge of invasion in Sudan he kicked some ass.

Seriously, Darfur is of little consequence to the Western powers, they give it lip service since it doesn't fall into any current stagetic area of importance, i.e. doesn't have huge oil reserves. Even then look at Angola.
The pathetic UN is handstrung by the Chinese interests and maybe the one way is to push them coming up to the olympics.

Why hasn't what is going on in Darfur being labelled as Ethnic cleansing, which is what it is.
Correct me if I am wrong on this but the UN were refusing to say it was ethnic cleansing?

It is yet another tragic conflict in a long line of tragedies on that continent.

And judging by Zimbabwe, leaving it to the Africans to try and sort it out will just mean it drags on until they need to rearm, have reached a a stalemate or one side hammers the cr** out of the other.
The question some South Africans is asking is what happens down the road, will their country descend into yet another Zimbabwe.

gbh

One of the lessons of the Rwanda genocide is that the UN is largely a pacifist organisation and filled at the higher ranks with career bureucrats who are not used to initiating new ideas. Robust action was required at the time and while hindsight is 20-20, the UN had sufficient intelligence from people on the ground to know what was going on. It may be good at keeping a peace or policing a peace agreement but is no good at going in with a military force and taking decisive action.

The potential for genocide and war is nowhere greater than in Africa due to the higgdly piggedly social structure of nations carved up during colonial times and taking little acocunt of history and ethnic differences. So Africans themselves if they are to prevent another Rwanda must develop capabilities to prevent and manage their own conflicts, because the UN showed during the Rwanda genocide it is not willing to risk its own troops to save Africans or to change the rules of engagement from being more than an observer to conflict.

So it is in no way an option to leave the policing of African conflicts to organisations or people outside of Africa and to suggest as such as John O'Shea has done is bordering on racism. African troops have done an OK job in Darfur given their resources, and certainly much better than UN troops have done elsewhere in Africa where corruption and lack of respect for local custom is common place among UN troop placements.

lostexpectation

gbh wrote:

One of the lessons of the Rwanda genocide is that the UN is largely a pacifist organisation and filled at the higher ranks with career conflict.
African troops have done an OK job in Darfur given their resources, and certainly much better than UN troops have done elsewhere in Africa where corruption and lack of respect for local custom is common place among UN troop placements.

well isn't the UN just made up of the various countries of the world, and france were the ones who knew most what was going on in rwanda and were the ones who didn't act politically rather then with the few troops they had there.

I keep forgetting was sudan a british of french area of influence? or both ie them putting forward the UN resolution.

gbh

There is also the question of having a tighter chain of command and giving the final say to the commander on the ground of the peace force. Two major failings of the UN in the 90's were Srebenica and Rwanda where both times the UN washed its hands of the fate of the people it was supposed to be protecting. Now if the UN could have called up reinforcements from troops in the locality who could have been there in a few days and if the commander on the ground didn't have to answer to civilian superiors, both of these might have been prevented. But with the UN any major action has to be approved by the Security Council who in turn have personal interests at heart. The UN is then a flawed organisation when it comes to the rapid responst to a rapidly developing genocide like Srebrenica and Rwanda.

OS119

gbh wrote:

The UN is then a flawed organisation when it comes to the rapid responst to a rapidly developing genocide like Srebrenica and Rwanda.

i think the UN has two seperate problems when it comes to 'crisis management', the first being that a network of commitees have differing interests, and often the commitees themselves are riven with factions, secondly its officials are unlikely to be particularly 'gung-ho' - quite simply if you are one of those people who makes decisions quickly and just gets on with your task then you unlikely to apply for a job in the higher echelons of the UN, its just not an environment you'd enjoy very much.

the Japanese bloke who was the civil head of the Yugoslavia UN effort is a case in point - he would purposefully take so long making a decision that the circumstances on the ground would shift and the decision he'd been asked for would become irrelevent, thus meaning he wouldn't have to either make a decision or explain it to someone in New York who didn't like it.

so not only is it difficult to get answers to difficult questions because they are being argued over by the world and his wife, but that the 'middle-management' - the link between the man on the ground needing an answer from the UNSC and the UNSC themselves - often aren't wildly keen on pushing UNSC to make the decisions in the first place.

the UN has another problem, that of moral equivilancy. if you believe that the UN is a force for good in the world that should seek to make the lives of the vunerable significantly better through good governance, then how can the 'sinners' of the world have as great a say as the 'saints'? having - for instance - Syria or Zimbabwe on the UN human rights commitee is a bit like appointing a paedophile to a child protection commitee, yet within the UN the 'tyranny of numbers' means that Sudan, China, Zimbabwe and Burma can vote down Sweden, Finland and Iceland on a motion over the protection of freedom of speech/conscience/religion/breathing.

asking turkeys to vote for christmas, or indeed asking criminals for longer jail sentances springs to mind...

walshb

Leave these people alone. The biggest bloody problem with Africa is the likes of O'Shea and other western ego trippers constantly sticking their nose into African affairs. Is he really so merciful and sympathetic for African peple.
African people need Africans to sort their problems and aren't waiting for some jumped up 'do gooder' to be lecturing them on how their continent and its people should live...If O'Shea and others like him put half the effort into alleviating problems on their own land, we would all be a lot better off.....

lostexpectation

gbh wrote:

There is also the question of having a tighter chain of command and giving the final say to the commander on the ground of the peace force. Two major failings of the UN in the 90's were Srebenica and Rwanda where both times the UN washed its hands of the fate of the people it was supposed to be protecting. Now if the UN could have called up reinforcements from troops in the locality who could have been there in a few days and if the commander on the ground didn't have to answer to civilian superiors, both of these might have been prevented. But with the UN any major action has to be approved by the Security Council who in turn have personal interests at heart. The UN is then a flawed organisation when it comes to the rapid responst to a rapidly developing genocide like Srebrenica and Rwanda.

they didn't have enough troops there though did they how many troops did they have in rwanda at the time? you can't blame it on armchair genreals if they didn't have enough troops.

gbh

lostexpectation wrote:

they didn't have enough troops there though did they how many troops did they have in rwanda at the time? you can't blame it on armchair genreals if they didn't have enough troops.

Well the Canadian general of the time is on record as saying that with a couple hundred or a thousand men the genocide could have been prevented. Now the best place to have got those troops from would have been Africa. But Africa didnt have the organisational structure at the time.

Basically I think John O'Shea is in favour of recolonising Africa, putting in white leaders because the natives are no good. Or maybe NGO's should run Africa. Its a power trip by him pure and simple and power trips usually benefit no-one.

I am saying that Africa and actually every continent, (eg Yugoslavia) is prone to genocide and you need troops to go in and act fast else you get another Rwanda.. Its kind of undeniable that the UN did little in the way of preventing the genocide and the example of Somalia also displays that local troops are the best for local conflicts. Its all to do with the structure of the UN. It is kind of happening again with the differing interests of the security example, China and Russia supporting each other and Sudan and vetoing strong action.

Mick86

walshb wrote:

Leave these people alone. The biggest bloody problem with Africa is the likes of O'Shea and other western ego trippers constantly sticking their nose into African affairs. Is he really so merciful and sympathetic for African peple.
African people need Africans to sort their problems and aren't waiting for some jumped up 'do gooder' to be lecturing them on how their continent and its people should live...If O'Shea and others like him put half the effort into alleviating problems on their own land, we would all be a lot better off.....

Damn right. If these people want to massacre each other who are we to intervene.

jmayo

Mick86 wrote:

Damn right. If these people want to massacre each other who are we to intervene.

Sure why not adopt the French approach. Sell them the weapons and send in some military advisors to show how best to use them, then they can massacre the hell out of each other.

Maybe recolonising them is an idea :rolleyes:
After all what have any of them managed since their independence?
Almost every country has seen civil wars of some sort, ethnic cleansing, etc. Their leaders have managed to make the bankers of Switzerland richer and their own people poorer.

A hell of a lot of it is due to western governments (and big business) trying to get hands on resources or superpowers playing chess games but the locals have a lot to answer in this whole mess.

Look where Zimbabwe has gone and look what it's fellow African countries have done to help it's people and knock some sense into Mugabe?
SFA would be the answer.