This from BBC:
The African Union has agreed to more than double the number of its peace monitors in the war-torn Sudanese region of Darfur.
By September, the force should be 7,700-strong, which could be further increased to 12,000, an official said.
There are currently just 2,200 troops, with another 1,000 expected next month, to monitor an area the size of France.
The UN's Sudan envoy says the peacekeepers have made a difference where they are present but they are too few to cover such a large area.
Jan Pronk also submitted a report saying that 12,000 troops were needed in Darfur by early next year - but they should have a stronger mandate.
**GOI Comment: I am glad that the number of peace keepers is going to increase but it is still too low. 7-12,000 is too small to monitor an area the size of France. We need former colonial states such as France to send troops to help buffer this area. I would also like to see U.S. troops but that probably will not happen because we are so over-extended in Iraq. Hopefully though we can see soldiers from the UK and other European countries such as Italy. The U.N. is making a difference for those who claim that the United Nations never makes a difference.
The problem in Sudan is that the government in Khartoum has said it would take "logistical and financial" support from NATO but not the presence of non-African troops.
The bottom line is that we have to act and act quickly in Sudan to prevent another Rwanda and further genocide. As peaceful countries we have a responsibility to help countries such as Sudan and Congo from sliding down the slope of peace and stability. This is why I believe that we should stay in Iraq until they can take care of themselves (even though I opposed the war to begin with) because I believe in "You broke it, you fix it."
---End of Transmission---
4 comments:
Sudan: more peacekeepers is positive. I don't know if ground troops would be the best idea - this is always risky, with unpredictable results. First, the world's powerful governments could put far far more pressure on Sudan's government to reign in the Janjaweed militia who are carrying out the violence.
Iraq: I think it would be far better for this to be under the auspices of the UN because a) it would undermine support for the resistance, which relies on seeing US/UK troops as occupiers and b) there would be more chance of actually fostering democracy in Iraq, rather than just securing privatization of services (and oil!) as peacefully as possible, which are the current aims.
Iraq: UK PLC,I agree with you that staying in there under the UN would be the ideal.
Sudan: Yeah, I think that Khartoum could put more pressure on the militias themselves. They are indeed dragging their feet and it makes you wonder why.
I am just so saddened how much Americas have no clue about what is going on in Africa. They just do not care about the place and see it as a "failure." This is SO annoying to me since I lived in Cote D'Ivoire for 2 years and see the potential and power that Africans have.
Americans are so stupid for not paying attention to Africa because it will be the next breeding ground for terrorism if left ignored.
For Khartoum, these slaughters are "counter-insurgency on the cheap" as Alex de Waal (who seems to know what he's talking about) described it. It seems that only outside pressure will push Khartoum to reign them in. But it's not forthcoming; perhaps because the US is impressed by Sudan's increasing co-operation with the "War on terror" (sharing intelligence etc., the LA Times reported on Friday) and hopes closer ties might help achieve strategic aims. The slaughter of tens of thousands of people, in this context, is clearly irrelevant to planners, at least heavily diminished by other concerns.
Yeah, that and Sudan does not sit on huge oil fields so the American's could really care less about the place. So sad.
Post a Comment