Lest you think the conservative press only cares about iRaq and the WOT, here's the lead editorial from today's Journal, calling out the "feckless" UN and EU, not to mention other muslim states. So, is it relevant? http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108483696135614030,00.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks -- See No Evil in Sudan May 18, 2004 After the genocide in Rwanda a decade ago, the world's moralists said "never again." Well, it is happening again, this time in Sudan, but once more the United Nations, the Arab world and Europe are failing to speak up, much less to act. As the rainy season starts again in that East African nation, the U.S. Agency for International Development -- the largest food donor to Sudan -- fears hundreds of thousands of people will die over the next nine months. This is no ordinary famine but part of the Sudanese regime's campaign against the African tribes in Darfur, a "strategy of systematic and deliberate starvation," according to a U.N. report that was initially suppressed so as not to offend Khartoum. Already some 30,000 people have been killed by Sudanese troops and Arab militias known as the Jingaweit. The attacks often start with air bombardments, followed by ground troops and the Jingaweit. Women and even little girls are routinely raped. The attackers burn villages and destroy water supplies and food stocks. The result is the depopulation of wide swathes of land, which the Arab tribesmen then take over. Already one-fifth of the population in an area the size of France is on the run. Some 120,000 have escaped to neighboring Chad, where aid agencies are at least allowed to feed the hungry, though the rain will make this a logistical nightmare. Especially worrisome is the fate of about one million refugees displaced inside Sudan. Aid workers are begging Khartoum for access to the region, but even those few supplies allowed into Darfur are often looted by the militia. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has raised the alarm about Sudan, but once again the "international community" is proving to be feckless, and the Bush Administration has been isolated in its attempts to raise international pressure on Khartoum. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has refused to condemn the Sudanese regime. But what can you expect from a body that includes Cuba, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and, yes, Sudan? When Sudan was re-elected to the Commission on May 4, the American envoy was alone in walking out on what he called this "absurdity." Meanwhile, Sudan is protected at the morally alert Security Council by China, which supplies the regime with arms and has oil interests there. Fellow Muslim nations Pakistan and Algeria are also loudly silent. Even the Europeans display little interest, arguing that "politicizing" Darfur could threaten a peace deal to end a separate conflict between the regime and rebels in the south. Given how much time and political capital the U.S. has invested in those peace talks, this is laughable. The U.S. wants tougher action precisely because of its concerns for the peace talks. If Khartoum can get away with ethnic cleansing in Darfur, what hope is there for any peace deal with the south? Whether the issue is Iran, Syria, Iraq or now Sudan, Europe always favors the softer approach, preaching "constructive dialogue" while the killing continues. The depredations at Darfur are the same ones Khartoum practiced in its 20-year war against the south. An estimated two million people died there as Africans were butchered and enslaved. Khartoum entered into peace negotiations only because the southern rebels had become too strong. That conflict pitted Muslim Arabs in Khartoum against black Christians and Animists, but in Darfur the black Africans are also Muslims, though mostly belonging to the Sufi sect. Yet the Muslim world and Arab League remain silent about this slaughter of their co-religionists. The Khartoum regime knows that an America already tied down by two wars cannot intervene militarily in Darfur. So it kills with impunity as the rest of the world turns away, saving its outrage for the abuses by a few Americans at Abu Ghraib.
This is an example of atrocities being committed now that we could potentially have helped out with had we not barreled ahead with an unjustified war in Iraq. Were we not spread so thin, we could do something about it, but we are occupying a nation and our word is not very good in the worldwide community right now. It is sad that this is happening in 2004. It is sadder that we cannot do anything about it because of Bush's war in Iraq.
BULL S..T Andy !! We can still help out....regardless of whether the world agrees with us about Iraq. Doing the right thing is always ok... DD
How are we supposed to do anything when our military is overcommitted in Iraq and elsewhere and people are talking about moving MORE troops into Iraq? Are you in favor of starting up the draft? That is about what it would take.
Yeah. Did you know that we're pulling a full brigade ( 4,000) from S. Korea ( near the border with N. Korea) to send to Iraq?
What about the UN and the EU? where's France on this one? they're certainly not shy about sendingtroops to africa? While it'd be great if the US could somehow act "unilaterally" in Sudan, other international organizations could step in as well.
Why does it have to be military aid??????????? Did you read the article? <I>As the rainy season starts again in that East African nation, the U.S. Agency for International Development -- the largest food donor to Sudan -- fears hundreds of thousands of people will die over the next nine months. This is no ordinary famine but part of the Sudanese regime's campaign against the African tribes in Darfur, a "strategy of systematic and deliberate starvation," according to a U.N. report</I> You have to deal with the regime if you want to stop the starvation...
This has been going on for over 20 years. Every once in a while, it makes a little blip on someone radar and they soon enough forget again. I'm sure it'll be no different this time. But, of all the regimes in need of overthrow, Sudan is the one that deserves it most.
Sudan ought to be addressed by more than UN report. The U.S. should take leadership here, but our troops, and money have been diverted. The U.S. still could propose a security council resolution, incite action. Let's get the UN and these other countries votes on the table. Right now nothing is being done, by the U.S. the U.N. or anybody. There is blame to go around. Because one is at fault here, doesn't let the other off the hook.
who's fault is this? the khartoum government i'd say. still, it's a crime that sudan has a seat on the UN human rights council.
The crimes committed is one thing. The fault of those who don't do what they can to aid is another. It the latter which I was talking about.
So why did we not invade Sudan if Iraq was solely a humanitarian mission ( no other rationale holds water today)? From what I read from Zinni we had Saddam on a tight leash with about 20,000 troops total (and not many soldiers).
basso I never responded to this thread and apologize for that; but anyway, here's some strange bedfellow-travelers for you on this issue: And here's Colin, 1 day later, man that moveon is effective!
i agree with most of the points in the moveon email, althoughi wish eli could've refrained from the knee-jerk bush bashing. the ineffectual powell state department notwithstanding, the bush administration has done far more in responnse to the the situation in darfur than any other western nation. the entire sudanese tragedy points up the irrelevance of the EU, NATO, and the UN in dealing with any crisis. i mean, sudan sits on the UN council for human rights (i think, could be the security council, but i don't have time to google). how ridiculous is that?
Sudan sitting on the UN human rights council is evidence of why the UN is irrelevant to dealing with any crisis. But your brush is way too broad here. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the EU. There are so many unresolved questions over the future and status of the European political union that to criticize it for not being effective as a security body (when it has no security arm or security policy) is like criticizing the Rockets for not having a good enough relief pitching staff or a good five cent cigar or doing enough particle physics research.....it simply doesn't compute. NATO, meanwhile has proven effective in taking action when necessary. Bosnia, Kosovo -- while the tragedies were not averted, at the least they were eventually contained, and Bosnia and Kosovo have been mild successes, or at least, not total disasters, as far as nationbuilding goes. Similarly, NATO declared the Sept 11 attack an attack on all its members and was at the ready within a week, if I recall. WHile the rebuilding of Afghanistan has been problematic (due in no small part to one member being rather distracted), the alliance itself has proven largely successful as a security apparatus. Unfortunately its deeply fractured, thanks in part to obstinance on both sides of the Atlantic.
......but what precludes one or a combination of: Germany Sweden Holland France Norway Denmark Spain etc from going to the UN and saying that it will help (send forces....not just monetary funds). Would the UN tell them thanks, but no thanks? Would the US & Great Britain be opposed to another country showing some <i>get up and go</i>? If the problem is that the US & Great Britain are stretched and nothing will happen on Sudan without their military forces in the lead, then what does that imply about the <i>Continent</i>? <a HREF="http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=3-09012004-EN-BP-EN&mode=download">Europe Population</a> <b>Population</b> France 59,629 Germany 82,537 Sweden 8,941 Spain 40,683 Italy 57,321 Belgium 10,356 Netherlands 16,193 Greece 11,018 Portugal 10,408 Denmark 5,384 ----------- 302,470 million <b>Military expenditures - percent of GDP</b> <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html#Military">France</a> 2.6% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html#Military">Germany</a> 1.5% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html#Military">Sweden</a> 2.1% (FY01) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#Military">Spain</a> 1.2% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#Military">Italy</a> 1.9% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/be.html#Military">Belgium</a> 1.3% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html#Military">Netherlands</a> 1.6% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html#Military">Greece</a> 1.6% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/po.html#Military">Portugal</a> 2.3% (2003) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/da.html#Military">Denmark</a> 1.6% (2003) <hr color=blue> <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html">United States Population</a> 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military">United States Military expenditures - percent of GDP</a> 3.9% (2001) Continental Europe has the population base to muster sufficient military forces to make a difference in Sudan and other troubled parts of the world, but the low GDP percentages devoted to military spending shows that they lack the desire to give themselves the capabilities to do so. <hr color=blue> An article from five years ago, but several parts are still relevant. <a HREF="http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/emu/Valasek051399.html">European Defense: Slumbering No More?</a> <i> Tomas Valasek, Weekly Defense Monitor, Center for Defense Information, Volume 3, Issue No. 19, May 13, 1999 Twice this decade, Europe tried to seize on a Balkan conflict to demonstrate its ability to conduct a purely European foreign and military policy, and twice it failed. In Bosnia in 1995, as in Kosovo in 1999, their efforts ended with the United States taking control of negotiations and leading its NATO allies into conflict. The U.S. initiative in Bosnia worked -- making Washington, not Brussels, the major player in Balkan politics. But the haphazard and so far unsuccessful conduct of the Yugoslav air campaign from Washington has prompted the Europeans to make another attempt at running their own security affairs. At a meeting on May 11, defense and foreign ministers of the Western European Union (WEU), a largely dormant European defense alliance, essentially agreed to close the organization and turn over security affairs to the European Union (EU). The EU, an economic powerhouse which so far has shied away from foreign affairs and military issues, will appoint a High Representative for common security and foreign policy at its June 3-4 meeting in Cologne, Germany. This individual's role will be largely coordinative although the position may develop into the equivalent of a European-wide foreign affairs and defense secretary. Coming on the heels of British government's change of heart and its endorsement of a European defense organization last December, this latest attempt to develop a common security policy has a momentum that previous initiatives lacked. But the same two issues that have kept Europe from developing foreign policy and military muscles to match its economic might -- lack of consensus on foreign policy issues and absence of the necessary interoperative military hardware -- must still be overcome. The Yugoslav campaign has exposed the various policy differences towards the Balkans that exist among the European countries. While Britain's Tony Blair vows to continue NATO's "just war" to reverse "the evil of ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo, Greece is reportedly supplying oil to Yugoslavia, ignoring NATO's calls for a voluntary oil embargo. Germany has sent fighter planes into combat for the first time since World War II, but Italy's president has repeatedly called for negotiations and a halt in the bombing. And although it is true that all the European NATO allies went along with the bombing, one wonders if that would have been the case without Washington's insistence? The diversity of European national interests and policies could be an asset if used wisely. Using the Balkans as an example, London could assume a tough stance, when appropriate, and then turn to the Greeks when conciliation is warranted. (Of course, such tactics assume that the various countries would have reached a basic agreement on overall strategy.) But the reality is that in foreign affairs, European countries continue to value national interests more than European cohesion -- no one even knows what European foreign policy priorities are since individual countries spend little time trying to formulate common positions. Furthermore, any joint European military organization would have to be able to project credible military power. The president-designate of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, has warned that it would be impractical to develop and implement a common foreign and security policy without an army to be the force behind the diplomacy. The Balkans conflict highlights this military-diplomatic disparity. Nearly two-thirds of the planes in the Yugoslav air campaign are American. With the exception of a few salvos from the British submarine HMS Splendid, the hundreds of (U.S.-made) cruise missiles launched against Yugoslavia have all been fired from American planes or vessels. European leaders admit that for their nations to become military effective they must acquire more transportation aircraft, aircraft carriers, and other platforms to more swiftly move units to areas of conflict. An official with the European Delegation to Washington said that all of Europe combined has 2/3 of the military capability of the United States on paper but only about 10% of U.S. military power in reality. But if money talks, the Europeans are curiously silent about instituting reforms and drawing closer together on security matters. European defense budgets have dropped to an average of 2.2% of the continent's combined gross domestic product (GDP) despite a pledge by all NATO members to keep their defense expenditures at 3% of GDP (see table). The two European allies with the highest spending in relation to the GDP -- Greece and Turkey -- are essentially arming to fight each other. More importantly, less than 16% of European defense spending goes towards buying new equipment (25% in the United States) while a hefty 60% of the average European military budget is spent maintaining existing troop levels (40% in the United States) (1998 figures). Money to buy new equipment is only one hurdle for the Europeans. Another central issues is who will make it. Europeans generally avoid buying American, where possible, to protect jobs and companies at home. But the cost of new research and development has become so prohibitive that genuine national industries are quickly going the way of dinosaurs. U.S. companies responded to falling domestic defense orders by merging and cutting overhead costs. For Europeans merging means that national governments surrender control over treasured industries, something these governments have been reluctant to do -- as attested by the French government's resistance to selling its stake in Matra, a maker of planes and missile parts. Even the current attempts at transnational cooperation on defense procurement is complicated. As a defense official at the British Embassy said, "the hassle factor is directly proportional to the square of the number of participants in the project." The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) project, a European attempt to plug a hole in its military airlift requirement, failed to get off the ground as the six member states squabbled over design, cost overruns, and other issues. Ultimately, whether Europe has a common foreign and security policy may be decided by bankers and businessmen rather than generals. The European common market and currency are already eroding the sovereignty of EU nations. If the monetary union is to succeed, businesses, capital and labor will have to move much more freely across European borders. As this happens, the role of national governments will inevitably diminish while European institutions become stronger. Under these conditions, defense procurement and foreign and security policy would theoretically be easier to coordinate and manage. But there remains the question of whether and how smoothly the populations of the individual countries of Europe will make -- or even allow -- this transition from a national to a European mindset. NATO Defense Spending as A Percentage of the GDP (selected countries) Belgium............................................... 1.5% Denmark.............................................. 1.6% France ................................................ 2.8% Germany ............................................. 1.5% Greece ................................................ 4.8% Italy .................................................... 2.0% Spain .................................................. 1.3% Turkey ................................................ 4.4% Hungary .............................................. 1.8% Poland ................................................ 2.4% European average ................................ 2.2% United States ...................................... 3.3% Sources: NATO, The Economist</i> <hr color=blue> In regards to EU military..... <a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3038847.stm">No celebration for EU army</a> <i>European Union defence ministers have been warned that a lot remains to be done before the EU's fledgling Rapid Reaction Force can be an effective military tool. A draft statement at a meeting in Brussels says the 60,000-strong rapid reaction force is now ready for a full range of peacekeeping tasks. But it acknowledges that Europe lacks many important military capabilities. There is therefore no sense of celebration. "It is hardly the time to rest on our laurels," said the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. "A lot remains to be done. It needs to be done as a matter of urgency," he added. Defence ministers acknowledge that gaps in the EU's military capabilities will limit and constrain the rapid reaction force. It will have trouble deploying quickly, trouble defending itself if a conflict suddenly intensifies, and trouble taking part in more than one major operation at any one time. Strategic differences The EU has already launched its first military mission - a small peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. It also hopes to take over the much larger mission in Bosnia next year. So everyone agrees that military capabilities must be improved, but there are differences of opinion within the EU about future strategy. Four member-states, led by France, announced plans last month to set up a European military headquarters independent of Nato. Other countries, Britain especially, are strongly opposed to that idea. </i> A nice read here: <a HREF="http://www.isn.ethz.ch/infoservice/secwatch/index.cfm?service=cwn&parent=detail&menu=8&sNewsID=8779"> New members, new challenges for EU defense policy"</a> In regards to EU Security Policy....... The EU writes a nice paper about what they should/could do...... <a HREF="http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf">EUROPEAN SECURITY STRATEGY Brussels, 12 December 2003</a> <i> Introduction Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure nor so free. The violence of the first half of the 20th Century has given way to a period of peace and stability unprecedented in European history....... The United States has played a critical role in European integration and European security, in particular through NATO. The end of the Cold War has left the United States in a dominant position as a military actor. However, no single country is able to tackle today’s complex problems on its own. Europe still faces security threats and challenges. The outbreak of conflict in the Balkans was a reminder that war has not disappeared from our continent. Over the last decade, no region of the world has been untouched by armed conflict. Most of these conflicts have been within rather than between states, and most of the victims have been civilians. As a union of 25 states with over 450 million people producing a quarter of the world’s Gross National Product (GNP), and with a wide range of instruments at its disposal, the European Union is inevitably a global player. In the last decade European forces have been deployed abroad to places as distant as Afghanistan, East Timor and the DRC. The increasing convergence of European interests and the strengthening of mutual solidarity of the EU makes us a more credible and effective actor. <b>Europe should be ready to share in the responsibility for global security and in building a better world.</b> 2 EN 45 million people die every year of hunger and malnutrition... Aids contributes to the breakdown of societies... Security is a precondition of development I. THE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT: GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND KEY THREATS Global Challenges The post Cold War environment is one of increasingly open borders in which the internal and external aspects of security are indissolubly linked. Flows of trade and investment, the development of technology and the spread of democracy have brought freedom and prosperity to many people. Others have perceived globalisation as a cause of frustration and injustice. These developments have also increased the scope for non-state groups to play a part in international affairs. And they have increased European dependence – and so vulnerability – on an interconnected infrastructure in transport, energy, information and other fields. Since 1990, almost 4 million people have died in wars, 90% of them civilians. Over 18 million people world-wide have left their homes as a result of conflict. In much of the developing world, poverty and disease cause untold suffering and give rise to pressing security concerns. Almost 3 billion people, half the world’s population, live on less than 2 Euros a day. 45 million die every year of hunger and malnutrition. AIDS is now one of the most devastating pandemics in human history and contributes to the breakdown of societies. New diseases can spread rapidly and become global threats. Sub-Saharan Africa is poorer now than it was 10 years ago. In many cases, economic failure is linked to political problems and violent conflict. Security is a precondition of development. Conflict not only destroys infrastructure, including social infrastructure; it also encourages criminality, deters investment and makes normal economic activity impossible. A number of countries and regions are caught in a cycle of conflict, insecurity and poverty......... Conclusion This is a world of new dangers but also of new opportunities. The European Union has the potential to make a major contribution, both in dealing with the threats and in helping realise the opportunities. An active and capable European Union would make an impact on a global scale. In doing so, it would contribute to an effective multilateral system leading to a fairer, safer and more united world</i> <hr color=blue> How many troops can Germany redeploy from South Korea to the Sudan? It doesn't look like very many. <a HREF="http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/military/deployments.html">Germany Military Deployments</a> <i> German Military Deployments in International Missions Germany currently has about 7,800 troops deployed in numerous international missions, working in concert with other countries under UN and NATO mandates to secure peace, fight terrorism and support democracy. Through its commitment to international cooperation, Germany remains one of the largest contributors of troops to multi-lateral missions after the United States. German Armed Forces are deployed in Afghanistan, in Uzbekistan, in the Horn of Africa, in Kosovo, , Bosnia-Herzegovina and Georgia. </i>
Just another <i>organization</i>. I checked their Press Releases and News pages.....no mention of Sudan. Position papers and nifty web sites, but nothing about <i>boots on the ground</i>. Went to <a HREF="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=UTF-8&q=&btnG=Search+News">Google News</a> and put in: <b>eurocorps sudan</b> <i> Your search - eurocorps sudan - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.</i> I had read in the past about low Canadian military spending and decided to look it up since they are mentioned on the Eurocorps web site. <a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Military">Canada Military expenditures - percent of GDP</a> 1.1% (2003)
Yeah, I was kidding. Eurocorps is one of those things that has been tossed about since the 70's and nothing ever done about -- but it always merits a 10 second mention in every college level european politics class, even though it's about as meaningful (and contemporaneous with) a lava lamp. I was shocked that they even had a website at all to tell you the truth.
