h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Guardian has a story that Tony Blair is pushing for a UN resolution to create a 'no-fly' zone over Dafur to prevent the Sudanese government from using air power against its own people. This would allow air strikes against Sudanese airbases in the event of any breaches of the no-fly zone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,2044314,00.html

I don't know how credible these reports are, or how much success Blair would have in convincing sceptics and home and abroad to sign up to this. But Blair does have form for this kind of intervention - Sierra Leone for instance.

What do Forumites think about the prospect of military action against Sudan in principle, in the light of events in Iraq? What should the principles be - when is the international community justified in intervening with force, and when is it not?

The Guardian's leader article on the subject is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,2044413,00.html

Theoretically a good idea... However, I wonder who'd actually sign up to do the work... GWB is hardly likely to commit yet more troops to fighting a foreign war and the UK couldn't spare much in the way of forces.

Geographically-speaking, unless you could get overflight permission from one of Sudan's neighbours (is that really likely?) it'd also mean involving an aircraft carrier operating in the Red Sea.

Who's got aircraft carriers capable? The US could - but probably won't, the UK couldn't do it on its own with its current carrier capacity and the French have only got one carrier - it's not even fully operational yet its already out in the Arabian sea on deployment.

Obviously, from the past years of doing nothing, no government gives a monkey's about the poor beggars in Dafur. No oil has been discovered in the area. So it will just be pious posturing yet again. That the situation there has been allowed to continue for so long shames us all

This quote is from this month's Medecins Sans Frontieres magazine covering letter. It is written by Joe Jacob a doctor working in South Darfur.

"In the past month I've seen terrible injuries, scores of gunshot wounds, parents whose children have just died, children who have lost fingers in handpump injuries, and assaults, but only one person over the age of five has cried audibly. Plenty have shed silent tears, but for a sound as natural as laughing, it's absence only became apparent 2 days ago. A 45-year-old lady had a huge stroke and died the next day. Undoubtedly a cultural phenomenon, the mourning daughter, whose uncontrolled wails made us all stop our activities, and my hairs stand on end, was quietly ushered away. Whilst laughter here is as unrestrained and entusiastic as I've ever seen, the polar opposite holds true for grief and sadness. Children's eyes will glaze over and slow salt-water drops will be the only evidence of pain as an abcess is drained without anaesthetic.Maybe there is just too real grief here and too much energy would be expended were it expressed in full every time."

http://www.uk2.msf.org/dispatches/

Morning Otto

An interesting article, touching deep nerves, but isn't all a bit of 'posturing'?, since we cannot apparently stop Iran committing what is virtually piracy, with armed RN vessels and helicopter in the area.

I think we need to tidy up other matters before embarking on such a venture, and why start/stop there? There are plenty of other brutal regimes that could 'benefit' from some intervention, rather than hand wringing.

Novo

"What do Forumites think about the prospect of military action against Sudan in principle, in the light of events in Iraq? What should the principles be - when is the international community justified in intervening with force, and when is it not?"

Intervention by force is justified when nothing else works and when the human suffering caused by inaction is arguably greater than the human suffering caused by intervention. However, it isn't always so clear-cut as Iraq proved - predictions and apparently-correct assertions can prove completely wrong.

There's been a great deal of concern about Darfur for years and interventionists of both Left and Right have been calling for action for quite a while. Personally, I think it's a case of too little too late. The Sudanese government and their Janjaweed militia proxies have done their dirty work whilst the international community issued little more than condemnation (as George Orwell correctly said, tyrants can stand moral force till the cows come home). If the IC is serious about dealing with these sort of actions within states then it needs to sort itself out and draft some sort of action plan to prevent future Rwandas, Darfurs etc.

"Who's got aircraft carriers capable? The US could - but probably won't, the UK couldn't do it on its own with its current carrier capacity and the French have only got one carrier - it's not even fully operational yet its already out in the Arabian sea on deployment."

Quite a few countries have aircraft carriers. France has the Charles de Gaulle doesn't it? Even Spain has one, iirc. Certainly, there's plenty of states excluding the US capable of confronting Sudan by force the problem is that, like the US, they'll probably only get involved if it's in their interests.

<>

Not unilaterally. Charles De Gaulle is currently committed to supporting French troops in Kabul.

There are realistically only 2 Western nations capable of projecting force on the necessary scale. And they're both fighting on two fronts already. Besides which, any action taken by the US/UK would be interpreted by many as further evidence of a war against Islam. Damned if they do ...

If African nations want to have the say in world affairs that their populations and geographical size would logically dictate, they must show that they are willing to solve African problems. To be fair, they have already started to do so with Darfur and perhaps just need time to see the job through.

Yes, but,

time has it's say; it is going on só long, so deadly long.

That creates a new motive for more severe action.

Those gangs at camels with guns from the big five.


A total different approach comes up in my mind. I've seen it in a small way in Israël; foreigners who participate in the suppressed
population.

Yes, it would take "total action", because the conditions in the death of the desert are extreme. But might it make a difference if hundred western people would join and mail their experiences in word/pictures/sounds and videos all around the world.
It would take huge logistic problems, but even thát kind of technocratic involvement might disturb the tiranny of the gangs.

It makes me so fxcking angry.

"There are realistically only 2 Western nations capable of projecting force on the necessary scale."

I would say the United States, Britain, France and Germany are all capable of "projecting force on the necessary scale" although Britain, the US and France and committed in Afghanistan (as is Germany, albeit in small numbers), the US and UK are also in Iraq and I think France is still involved in the Congo. Germany is unlikely to get involved, even with a UN mandate and support, thanks to all that historical baggage which they (and we) really should let go of.

"f African nations want to have the say in world affairs that their populations and geographical size would logically dictate, they must show that they are willing to solve African problems. To be fair, they have already started to do so with Darfur and perhaps just need time to see the job through."

Most African nations have tiny armies which are little more than extended police forces or border security forces. South Africa and Nigeria are two of the only sub-saharan African nations with any sort of notable military power and modern South Africa favours diplomacy over force whilst Nigeria tends to interfere in the affairs of its neighbours rather than police the continent. North African nations would likely be seen as favouring Khartoum so aren't really a good choice for policing the Darfur situation. Ethiopia used to have a huge army during the Communist period but I think that has been scaled-down now and they are unlikely to commit many troops to foreign warzones because of their ongoing problems with Eritrea.

It's worth noting, incidentally, that Khartoum rejected allowing UN troops into Darfur but permitted an African Peacekeeper Force. That probably says more about the effectiveness of the APF than anything else.