the **** has hit the fan...and at the risk of needlessly conflating warren and bruce (not brooooooooce), if i had a rocket launcher... http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1170399 -- Attack on Darfur Camp Leaves 29 Dead Aid Workers Say Armed Arab Men Attacked Camp, Burned Shelters in Darfur, Killing 29 By SAM CAGE The Associated Press Sep. 29, 2005 - The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said Thursday an unprecedented attack on a displaced persons' camp in Sudan's embattled Darfur region reportedly has killed 29 people. Antonio Guterres, chief of the U.N. agency, cited aid workers' reports of the attack Wednesday at Aro Sharow camp which also left 10 seriously injured. These reports said up to 300 armed Arab men on horses and camels attacked the camp in northwest Darfur and burned about 80 makeshift shelters. Between 4,000-5,000 Sudanese were believed to be living in the camp and most reportedly fled into surrounding countryside, UNHCR said. The nearby village of Gosmeina was also reportedly attacked and burned. "The government of Sudan has a responsibility to ensure security for all of its citizens," Guterres said. "As long as this insecurity continues, the international community cannot provide the assistance that is so desperately needed by hundreds of thousands of people." Residents stayed in the Aro Sharow camp at night for safety, but would return to their nearby villages during the day to cultivate their fields, the agency said. U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland warned that escalating violence in Darfur is threatening aid for millions of people as increasing numbers of international staff come under attack. "It could all end tomorrow," he said. "It's as serious as that.". UNHCR said it was also concerned that the deterioration in security is slowing aid supplies and could prompt Darfur's displaced people to flee again possibly to neighboring Chad, which already has more than 200,000 Sudan refugees. The Darfur crisis began when rebels took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin. The government is accused of responding with a counterinsurgency campaign in which the ethnic Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, committed widespread abuses against ethnic Africans. At least 180,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict many from hunger and disease.
Why isn't the whitehouse getting out the press on this? If we really care about stopping atrocities against a general populace we should act now before this kind of thing continues.
The White House doesen't control the press... A better question would be why isn't the press reporting this? Or why isn't their beloved UN doing anything about it?
Actually, there is a lot of oil over there. But all of the contracts are between the Sudanese government and ... wait for it... wait for it... CHINA! Fear of a Chinese veto has stopped more aggressive UN condemnation and a general lack of political relevance has prevented the US/EU from getting involved. What most people don't know is that in addition to the 100,000+ that have died 50,000+ Darfurian women have been gang-raped in an effort by the Janjaweed to "breed out" the ethnic population. Sort of an extremledy F'ed up version of 'prima noctae' from Braveheart. As for why the media isn't getting the word out. They actually had been quite vocal. British papers were RAILING against Blair for inaction. Many papers printed stories on the UN's declaration that it was "the greatest humanitarian crisis the world is facing today." The NYT has run continuing stories on both the war in Congo and the Darfur conflict on and off for the past year or two. However, it just hasn't caught on with the majority of the American public for some reason. It really is sad how the media can muster so much focus on the plight of Katrina victims or the war in Iraq, but can't exercise a little more will to force the issue on Darfur. Oh well, I guess that ratings are a lot better for the former stories...
The U.S. doesn't, but a veto would foul up things in the UN Security council. Also, I wouldn't underestimate how much China's oil interest might effect us. China has been VERY buddy buddy with Chavez lately and I don't think we want to spark a row over oil markets.
Did U.S. ask UN Security Council for permission to liberate Iraq? China also befriended with Saddam, but that didn't cause any concern to U.S. BTW, Chavez is a liberal.
The US watered down the resolution because they couldn't get the one that threatened force through without a veto. The US doesn't like getting resolutoins vetoed and generally will back down in any situation that this is likely.
As for this particular topic, everyone in government should be required to watch <I>Hotel Rwanda</I> and then the US should organize an armed coalition willing to go in and do what is necessary. This is one area where I am 100% pro-use-of-force. Negotiation does nothing but lead to people being killed for no reason.
The whitehouse does indeed set the agenda of the press to a large degree. If the whithouse holds conferences on the matter and announces new initiatives, will continue, and that they will use peace keeping troops if need be in order to stop the violence, the press would be all over it. The whitehouse got the press out in Iraq and the press bought the whitehouse story hook line and sinker in that one. Some papers had to issue written statements apologizing for not doing their job in investigating the whitehouse claims beforehand on the build up to Iraq. So it is totally false to insinuate the whitehouse can't set an agenda that the press won't follow. That is one way that things happen. Another way is for the press to continue to ask questions, build public awareness, put pressure on the whitehouse, until public awareness and support forces the whitehouse to act. That should have also been going on all along. The UN should also get involved it is within their mandate. I agree with you there. But there are a couple of problems with the UN. Our current President has severely damaged our credibility within the UN. His over eagerness to use military solutions, in a unilateral way, has made possible allies in this fight gunshy. The U.S. should lead. The U.S. should keep the matter alive at the UN, and if they can't do a successful job in leading the UN to action, then they must take action themselves. That isn't happening. I will say that so far the US has done more in regards to Darfur than just about any other nation. It just isn't near enough.
Franchise, I totally agree with you that the US has done a lot more than anyone else. Still, even when the US, or at least major individuals in the government, are willing to declare that a genocide is going on in Darfur it shocks me that other organzatios such as the EU who are more closely tied to African concerns are not doing anything. The UN is only willing to go into the Congo after the war is 'manageable,' and people will only declare a genocide in Darfur after the political cost of going in is far less than what it would be now.
From the article: The UN is practically the only agency doing anything there at all. Last time I checked though the UN doesn't have an army to counter the Sudanese militias.
