> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Baker > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 1:38 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: The US in Sudan > > JDG said: > > > Only conspicious because you defined "troops" as including only > > military > > personnel, and not including *police* personnel. > > So is your thesis that genocide is a criminal problem whereas, say, > terrorism is a military problem?
The problem of genocide in Sudan is an old and messy one. I happen to have an African perspective on that problem available. About two and a half years ago, my Zambian daughter Neli stated that she was thoroughly disgusted with the UN over it's response to the Sudan. She was a phenomenal supporter of the UN since she was a little girl. She had done model UN in college, and even got to sit in the UN to represent her country at a model UN their. Her delegation was one of the three or four that received the top rating at the model UN. She said, at the time, that it really hurt her to admit that GWB was doing far more about the genocide in the Sudan than any other world leader. Also, as an aside, she has a personal interest in the Sudan since her best friend's uncle is one of the leaders of the black Southern Sudanese. Back about 3 years ago, if you recall, the US was castigated at the UN for referring to the genocide in the Sudan as genocide. The General Assembly showed their support of the genocide by putting the Sudan on the UN Human Rights Commission. Even much later, the UN official report stated that there was no genocide. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/index.htmlhttp://www .cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/index.html The year before this report was prepared, after a lot of pressure on the government, placed by the US and the EU, a treaty was signed. At that point, the African Union sent in peacekeepers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Mission_in_Sudan At the time, the US offered any logistics help needed...including air support if the peacekeepers came under heavy attack. It was agreed upon by all parties that US military forces would be problematic, so the US agreed to back the AU forces this way. I know that France was opposed to any air support for the AU forces, but I think that this ended up being an official NATO promise nonetheless, since France's military is not incorporated into NATO since the US was kicked out of France in the mid 60's. A bit later, the US proposed that UN peacekeepers be added: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/14/sudan.peacekeepers/ Now might be a good time to mention the makeup of UN Peacekeeping Troops. The top contributors of troops, by country are: Bangladesh: 10.3k Pakistan: 9.6k India: 9.1k Jordan: 3.7k Nepal: 3.5k Ethiopia: 2.8k Ghana: 2.6k Uruguay: 2.6k Nigeria: 2.5k South Africa: 2.0k Senegal: 1.9k Morocco: 1.6k Brazil: 1.3k China: 1.1k Sri Lanka: 1k Egypt 0.9k Argentina 0.9k Kenya: 0.8k Poland: 0.7k Namibia: 0.7k This list is obtained from http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/factsheet.pdf You see that it's mostly small countries that provide troops. I'm guessing, by Bangladesh leading the list, that the troops are paid by the UN, not sponsored by their own countries. Now, of the remaining countries that have contributed a few hundred troops to join the UN forces, the US may very well be on the bottom of the list. I'd argue that the difference between contributing 0.1% of the UN peacekeeping forces and 0.5% is not a critical measure of the desire for peacekeeping. Finally, to address your question about handing genocide, it is clear that the options for stopping genocide are limited. UN peacekeeping forces are, with rare exceptions like Korea or Gulf War I, only there to keep the peace after it has been agreed upon. For the most part, they are very lightly armed and can do no more than stand aside if a determined, well armed force decides to commit genocide. They are a very useful tripwire, and can be most helpful is policing agreements. But, they are not a mechanism that stops genocide. The real choices are either hope that diplomatic pressure is enough, or have a credible threat to invade the country with foreign troops to stop the genocide. By credible threat, I mean that sometimes one will be required to invade instead of only threatening to invade. Stopping genocide in this manner has been against international law. When the UN permitted genocide in the Balkans, it was following international law. When NATO stopped it, it was in direct violation of international law. Maybe the US should unilaterally intervene in places like Rwanda and the Sudan, even thought they pose no present or future threat to world stability. That's far and away the most likely way for it to happen...if it were to happen at all. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
