It looks like US led NATO forces will finally begin to do something about the mass-starvation induced by Islamist militants in the Sudan's Darfur region. It's been way too long in the making, and let's hope whatever planning needs to be done gets done quick. Children in the region are dying
thanks to the relentless onslought of Islamist militia forces and their supporters in Khartoom.
Do you think the US or its European allies will get credit for, once again, coming to the aid of Muslims? Don't hold your breath. Expect the reaction from the Islamic world to be a) too little too late. The US let tens of thousands of Muslims die (ignoring the fact that they died as a result of other Muslims actions) b) the US is once again invading a Muslim country in a Zionist inspired crusade (remember, it was the 'victory' over US forces trying to end mass-starvation in Somalia that inspired Osama bin Laden to take his war against us up a nocth).
NATO will support the African Union with airlift support into the war-torn region of Darfur, Sudan, alliance officials announced here June 8.
Ethnic violence between Arabs and black Africans has left an estimated 180,000 dead and 2 million more homeless in the area, and the African Union is working to send in a peacekeeping force.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer called the situation in Darfur "appalling." NATO must do all it can to assist, he said today during opening remarks at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO headquarters here. NATO defense ministers, including U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, are attending the meeting.
Details are still being worked out, but NATO and U.S. officials said the NATO portion of airlift support will be coordinated through the Supreme Allied Headquarters Europe, in Belgium. The European Union also will work to coordinate airlift support through existing mechanisms at Einhoffen, Netherlands.
"We knew this was an area in which NATO had considerable experience and capability, and we today decided on an arrangement that'll take advantage of that," a senior NATO diplomat said June 8.
The diplomat noted the AU had made no request for troops for a quick-reaction force.
This marks the first time NATO has deployed forces into Africa. The diplomat said it's significant for several reasons.
"We think, given the common security issues of the 26 allies in NATO and the proximity of Africa and the security implications of developments of Africa, it makes sense for NATO to be interested in what happens in Africa," he said.
1
The very fact that we continue to do operations that aid Muslims, as well as non Muslims equally, speaks volumes to the charge that the west is on a crusade to once again attack the Muslims. however I do not expect them to see it that way.
Posted by: dave at June 09, 2005 12:51 PM (fsJ2z)
2
I'm skeptical still. Hate to say it, but Canada announced a 100 personnel force to go to Sudan late last month. About 20 of that force would be used as security purposes. Some members of Parliament were not happy however, demanding a 1000 personnel force.
Anyways, this mission was rejected by the Sudanese government saying that they will only accept AU forces in the area and aren't interested in any help from non AU countries. Apparently, Canada's decision was made without consulting Sudan.
It's also kind of sad considering the Sudanese government funds the very militia that is doing the killings, yet they don't want the help.
Anyways, I'll believe all of this when it actually happens.
Posted by: Tenfly at June 09, 2005 01:12 PM (Z2lRM)
3
For now, the mission seems to be limited to flights in and out of the mission, but I too will take a wait and see attitude.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 09, 2005 01:38 PM (JQjhA)
4
Oh jeeze! Does this mean we're going to be inundated with rolling pictures of Starvin' Marvin, again? And Geldof is getting involved with Africa, again, too? What is this - 1984 all over again?
Posted by: Editor at June 09, 2005 01:48 PM (adpJH)
5
Yes.
As for the "NATO's going into Sudan to help Muslims again" comment, this implies that NATO has done this before - which it didn't. Bombing the Serbs 10 years ago was done primarily to keep Turkey and Greece from fighting each other (which they would have, if the situation had gotten even more out of control), not to "help the Muslim Kosovars." The fact that the KLA (which received a fair bit of western "aid") was populated by the same kind of Islamic fascist villainy that the GWOT is trying to stamp out these days is, in a word, ironic.
Helping the Muslims of Kosovo was secondary, played up by the "genocide" which, these days, appears to have been another crock of shit beefed up with stellar intelligence gathering.
Should NATO help in Sudan? I don't think so. NATO's a defence force, not a humanitarian one. Let the UN do this.
Posted by: Venom at June 09, 2005 02:07 PM (dbxVM)
6
Maybe I'm being simplistic here, but what is the UN doing? They set up refugee camps and hold "talks". They do a little hand wringing followed by more "talks". They air drop a few bags of rice and some penicillin and talk some more. The refugee camps are attacked and more die. UN Agencies are expelled and the killing and the starvation just keeps going on. Is this what you're suggesting? More of the same?
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2005 02:49 PM (fl6E1)
7
I'm suggesting using an organization that has a history of delivering humanitarian aid to those who need it, not an organization that has no such experience.
Posted by: Venom at June 09, 2005 03:09 PM (dbxVM)
8
I agree, but seriously, why is it - even when there is help - it's constantly too late? Rwanda? Sudan? Pick up the pace.
Posted by: Tenfly at June 09, 2005 03:09 PM (Z2lRM)
9
Again I'm going to be simplistic. The.aid.isn't.working. The.talks.aren't.working. How many years of this are we going on now? Couldn't they work in conjunction? One to enforce order and the other to deliver aid so that it's effective and getting into the right hands?
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2005 03:22 PM (fl6E1)
10
"Couldn't they work in conjunction? One to enforce order and the other to deliver aid so that it's effective and getting into the right hands?"
Maybe, but the UN does have its peacekeeping force - which, before you completely rip it to pieces, was actually pretty effective up until maybe 10 or 15 years ago. Like Iraq, you only hear the bad side of it. They do a lot of good in hostile environments. Also, give the UN a little bit more flexibility to defend itself in hostile situations. Rwanda occurred because too many people at the top were trying to handle the situation with one hand tied around their balls. Bosnia wasn't really much different. I still think the UN, being more of a humanitarian organization than NATO, is better suited for this kind of mission. NATO's a military powerhouse, but I doubt they're that adept at knowing how to distribute food/medicine aid. The only way you'd get the two coordinated is if the UN was in charge, and I doubt that would be a popular move with a lot of people.
Posted by: Venom at June 09, 2005 03:45 PM (dbxVM)
11
All too often though the UN peacekeepers carry guns but they're not allowed to use them. Whether or not it's a popular move shouldn't matter. It never has before. I'm not entirely dissing the UN. They have some pretty serious problems and I'm quite critical of them for those things, but I'm not unreasonable. However, their bureacracy has gotten pretty bad when it comes to distributing aid and it often takes quite a while before they get in motion. Look how long it took them to react to the tsunami in the southeast. And then they criticized other countries for showing them up. Well, it needed to happen fast and they were dragging their feet.
My point is exactly what you brought up. It worked up until 10 or 15 years ago. How much longer does it have to not work? I'm not arguing that I think NATO is a better alternative because I'm not convinced of that either.
Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2005 04:30 PM (fl6E1)
12
Venom, actually we learned from the Indonesian tsunami that the UN is best suited for watching others distribute aid while the UN takes credit for their work.
Posted by: SPQR at June 10, 2005 02:33 AM (xauGB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
