It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: African Union Requests NATO Assistance In Darfur

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:19 PM
In an effort to curb violence that has increasingly plagued the Darfur region of Sudan in recent years, the African Union is preparing to significantly increase the number of peace-keepers in the region. As a result they are requesting logistical assistance from NATO.
The African Union is preparing to significantly expand its presence in Darfur in an attempt to halt the continuing violence, and has requested NATO support.

On 24 May, NATO’s North Atlantic Council agreed on initial military options for possible Alliance support, including strategic airlift; training, for example in command and control and operational planning; and improvement of the ability of the African Union’s mission in Darfur to use intelligence.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The African Union currently has approximately 2,500 troops in the region, however they plan to increase the mission to over 7,700 troops. I believe any NATO assistance would be a great help in order to bring stability to the area. The United States alone is spending billions of dollars a year in Iraq. While a few hundred million extra dollars from an allied organization would definetly go a long way to bring peace for the region, they are having trouble getting the money.

It is wonderful to see the African Union do as much as it can, but without the help of the bigger players in the world there is only so much they can accomplish.

Related News Links:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 04:45 PM
I really do hope we put our money where our mouths are. We've been talking about freeing people from oppression, ending suffering, ending genocide, and then we turn a blind eye to countries not of strategic importance. Darfur is a hotbed of violence, and the African Union doesn't have the resources to combat it fully. At least they're trying. I hope we take them up on this request. Nice find

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 09:07 PM
What I don't understand is how noone is asking why the AU is not asking for the UN to help them out... You think perhaps it has something to do with the inability of Kofi Annan to say that genocide has been happening in Sudan?

BTW the US has been giving ultimatums to the government of Sudan and to the Arab militia that have been doing the job their government sent them to do.

The US actually was preparing to go to Sudan, but as always the French and some other UN nations, including Kofi Annan, have been blocking the US once more.

East Africa next target on terrorism: Reports from Washington and London
state that the United States and Britain may be planning to extend the war on terrorism to Somalia, Sudan and Yemen as soon as the campaign underway in Afghanistan is over.
…For Somalia, however, concern is present. Reports state that the US is
conducting military reconnaissance in the country to identify al-Qaeda military basis and military camps on the Kenya-Somalia borders. The Somalia Transitional National Government, however, rejected US charges that Somalia Islamic group al-Itihad has links with al-Qaeda and affirmed to the US that there are no terrorist camps in Somalia and that Somalia does not support terrorism. In related news, the French Foreign ministry stressed the need for clear evidence of connections with the al-Qaeda terrorist group, as was the case with Afghanistan, before any such move. Furthermore, a team of observers consisting of nine senior UN officials, started an official mission to assess the current security and political situation in Somalia as part of the UN efforts to verify recent US administration accusations that Somalia is sheltering several banned terrorist organizations.

…Ethiopian allegations that Islamic extremists in Somalia have taken over
Somalia has inspired the thought of US attacks on Somalia.

Excerpted from.

Let's see some other things the US has done to help the people of Sudan.

US gives ultimatum for Sudan fighting parties: US special envoy to Sudan
John Danforth said the United States will not spend "month after month, year after year of fruitless negotiations," trying to end Sudan's civil war and will drop its bid if the warring parties act against peace. During his visit to Sudan, Danforth listed four confidence-building proposals for the two sides to act upon, including a cessation of hostilities in the Nuba mountains in central Sudan, an end to attacks on civilians, "zones of tranquility" where
humanitarian agencies can do their work and an end to taking slaves.

Danforth said that unless the Sudanese government and the rebel Sudan
People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) adhere to the proposals --- which he
described as a test of “good faith” --- by mid-January, he will tell U.S.
President George W. Bush there is nothing more the US can do. The
Sudanese government on the other hand said that the proposal puts
pressure on the government rather than on SPLM. Following the end of the
visit to Sudan, Ambassador Danforth told a news conference in Kenya that
he is not holding much hope that the two warring parties will come to an
agreement by mid-January. He said if the response to the proposal is
negative, it will not be possible to have a “…warm and fuzzy relationship with the US”.
… Government extended ceasefire for humanitarian reasons: In line with the four point proposal by the US special envoy John Danforth, the Government of Sudan extended its ceasefire for four weeks to enable the World Food Program (WFP) to complete its operation of airdropping 2,039 food aid provided by the US government to rebel-held areas in Nuba Mountains of central Sudan, on December 3. The government also announced that it has accepted the US proposals with respect to an indefinite cease-fire around the Nuba Mountains for objective reasons, including the flow of relief supplies from inside the Sudan, not from abroad.

The Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), however, had accused the government in Khartoum of violating its pledge by continuing to bomb civilian targets in the area. SPLM said that government bombing continued 3 days after it declared a ceasefire on November 12 and while WFP planes were on the ground. In related news, US special envoy for Sudan, John Danforth, said US authorities would make food available for people in government-held areas in the Nuba Mountains if a survey, to be conducted by the United States, shows the people in the area are also in need of food aid.

Excerpted from.

Since then the US has continued trying to help the Sudanese people who are being systematically murdered, starved to death on purpose and those who survive are driven from their homes, yet the UN, or Kofi Annan continued saying no genocide was happening in Sudan....

So, keep blaming the US when we have been trying to help these people and we have been sending aid....

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 05:36 AM
Does anyone else feel that the issue of sudan, and the genocide that is taking place is not the real reason the US, especially, is taking an interest.

I mean there is a plan for the REAL state of ISRAEL, to include the old boundaries, which i am sure was written in bible, to include the land that was supposedly promised to the israelites. This land includes, the now countries of, IRAQ, SYRIA. parts of other countries include, SAUDI ARABIA, JORDAN, and "SUDAN".

Now i could just be paranoid, but this does make sense. I found some of this info at "global" if anyone wishes to check this out.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW the US has been giving ultimatums to the government of Sudan and to the Arab militia that have been doing the job their government sent them to do.

The rebel SPLM group referenced in your post is not an Arab Militia.
They are made up of Christians and indiginous religions and they were armed and trained with the help of Israel and the US. The area discussed in your quoted text is also unrelated to the genocide in Darfur. It refers instead to the conflict in Southern Sudan. The genocide in Darfur didn't beging until 2003, following a rebel uprising against the Sudan government.

Here's some background on the Southern Sudan SPLA referred to in your post:

[edit on 4-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by AceOfBase

The rebel SPLM group referenced in your post is not an Arab Militia.

Where did i claim that the rebel SPLM group was the arab militia?....

I did not say that the SPLM is the arab militia, we can clearly see in the article that the SPLM is the oposing faction to the Sudanese government. What i said is that the Sudanese government backs arab militias, also known as janjaweed, who have been doing much of the killing for the Sudanese government.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
They are made up of Christians and indiginous religions and the were armed and trained with the help of Israel and the US. The area discussed in your quoted text is also unrelated to the genocide in Darfur. It refers instead to the conflict in Southern Sudan. The genocide in Darfur didn't beging until 2003, following a rebel uprising against the Sudan government.

Here's some background on the Southern Sudan SPLA referred to in your post:

The government of Sudan had waged a jihad before the latest jihad which started in 2003 in Darfur, the one before the lastest jihad started back in 1983, and by 1997 there were already 1.5 million people which the Sudanese government had killed.

The civil war resumed in 1983 when President Nimeiri imposed Shari'a law, and has resulted in the death of more than 1.5 million Sudanese since through 1997.

Excerpted from.

The final deathtoll for the first jihad was 2 million or more.

The civil war in Sudan first started since the 1950s up to 1972, when a military unit mutinied against the government of Sudan. The government of Sudan has been declaring jihads since then, the latest one was declared in 1983. in this latest jihad the death toll according to some estimates is 400,000 with about 15,000 Sudanese civilians being murdered every month by the Arab militia suported by the Sudanese government.

In other words, the 70,000 estimate from WHO was a fraction of a fraction of the full picture. The 60,000 number that Mr. Zoellick cited as low-but-possible is actually low-and-impossible.

Other authorities suggest that mortality is likely to be closer to 400,000 -- more than twice Mr. Zoellick's high number. The component of this estimate involving deaths by violence is based on a survey by the Coalition for International Justice, a nongovernmental organization operating under contract with the U.S.

Excerpted from.

Here is an excerpt to how the latest genocide, or jihad started in Sudan.

In mid April 2004, the U.N. reported that 110,000 mostly Muslim Black African Sudanese refugees had fled into Chad from the western region of Darfur ("Homeland of the Fur People") to escape attacks by a horse mounted Muslim Arab militia known as the Janjaweed (Ar. jin (demon)+jawad (horse), thus "demon horses"), hired by the central Sudanese government to put down a rebellion in the area. Thousands more were reported to have been stranded along the border between Chad and the Sudan. Many of the refugees were reported to be close to starvation. Rape and mass execution were standard Janjaweed tactics of intimidation, and by October 70,000 were estimated to have been killed and more than one million displaced in the conflict. The root of the trouble was a rivalry of long-standing between nomadic Arab herders and sedentary Black farmers. The UN on July 30 ordered Sudan to stop the attacks by the Janjaweed and disarm them within thirty days. The government of Sudan countered that international criticism of its internal affairs amounted to an attack on Islam. On August 4, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched in Khartoum vowing jihad if foreign troops entered the country to try to enforce the UN resolution. In September, the United States officially accused Sudan of "genocide" in Darfur paving the way for tougher sanctions.

Excerpted from.

The genocide (jihad) which began in 1983 and this latest genocide perpetraed by the Sudanese government has everything to do with the Sudanese government and they are merely a continuation from the conflict which began in the 1950s.

The first genocide (jihad) was a war against the black Christian population of Sudan, the second one is a genocide against black Muslims that are not Arab.

Do note that in the "link" I provided above there is mention to a date in 2004 when the US once more mentions what has been happening in Sudan and requests that the Sudanese govenrment stop the genocide, which was after the second genocide the Sudanese government decided to execute.

Wouldn't you rebel against the Sudanese govenrment if they were committing mass murders against civilians? i am not talking about armed people, but civilians, most of whom had nothing to do with the rebellion. The rebellion came up because of what the Sudanese government and the Arab militias have been doing to these people.

Nice try, once again, in trying to put the blame on the US and now also on Israel.

My guess is that you are trying to blame the US and Israel, when instead of you addressing what the Sudanese government and the Arab militias have been doing for the rebels to fight, you instead decided to name the US and Israel as the ones arming the rebels without stating why these people needed to be armed, or what was done to them.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here is an excerpt to how the latest genocide, or jihad started in Sudan.

This site below has a much better background on the conflict:

New Yorker
At 5 a.m. on Friday, April 25, 2003, a blast shook a tiny, one-runway airport in El Fasher, the town of Amina’s birth. It was followed by six rapid detonations. Sleeping Sudanese soldiers, who were encamped in a nearby garrison, awoke and scrambled out of their barracks toward an ammunition depot across the street. Many of the soldiers, some still in their nightclothes, were picked off by machine-gun fire as they ran. Rebel Darfurian marksmen were perched high in the trees.

The attackers, members of a then obscure group, the Sudanese Liberation Army, did damage far greater than their numbers or their reputation. Employing two hundred and sixty men, forty Toyota Land Cruisers, four trucks, and mainly small-arms fire, they managed to take over a vital military outpost. Because the attack occurred on a Friday, the day of prayer in Sudan, when many soldiers are home with their families, the Sudanese military had mounted few patrols around the airport, and the rebels sneaked unchallenged onto the tarmac.

The raid, which lasted several hours, killed around a hundred soldiers. Five Antonov airplanes and two helicopter gunships were destroyed. (The government is said to have fewer than a hundred attack aircraft.) The rebels at first tried to disable the planes with haphazard gunfire; then someone shouted, “Hit the fuel tank,” and the aircraft erupted in flames. The rebels also seized nineteen Land Cruisers and six trucks, and emptied several warehouses that were filled with weapons. (They almost made away with eight tanks, but they couldn’t find the keys.) When the rebels left El Fasher, around midday, they had lost only nine men, and had kidnapped the head of the Sudanese Air Force, General Ibrahim Bushra Ismail, whom they released forty-five days later, after protracted negotiations with tribal leaders.

The rebel group, which was formed in February, 2003, had legitimate complaints. Darfur’s inhabitants felt that the region was being ignored. The Sudanese government rarely paid for road building and repair, schools, hospitals, civil servants, or communications facilities in Darfur. Those who considered themselves ethnically African were angered by the government’s practice of awarding most of the top posts in the region to local Arabs, even though they were thought to be the minority there. Disgruntled Darfurians had appealed to the government to include their concerns on the agenda of the U.S.-backed peace process. This effort failed, and many concluded that, if they ever wanted to see their needs met, they would have to do what John Garang had done in the South: take up arms against the Sudanese government and try to get the world’s attention

They say the reason that they had to rely so heavily on Arab militias is because many of the people in the Sudanse Army were from Darfur and so they could not be used to launch an attack on their own people.

During the conflict with the rebels based in the South, the Sudanese military had honed a strategy for combatting insurgents: the Air Force bombed from the sky, while Arab tribesmen, armed by the government, launched raids on the ground. In Darfur, the Sudanese Army needed to rely even more heavily upon local Arab militias. A majority of the Army’s rank-and-file soldiers were from Darfur, and they could not be trusted to take up arms against their neighbors and kin. (Many Darfurians had served with the Army in the war against Garang’s rebels.) By July, 2003, the government was appealing to Darfur’s Arab tribal leaders to defend their homeland against rebels whom they branded as “tora bora” (an allusion to the terrorist fighters based in the caves of Afghanistan).

[edit on 4-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:30 AM
Riiight, according to you and according to the government that is committing genocide upon civilians.

The truth tells us another story. The government of Sudan has been committing genocide against their own people under the name of jihad.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Riiight, according to you and according to the government that is committing genocide upon civilians.

No, it's according to people familiar with the situation there.
The rebels themselves claimed responsibility for the April 2003 attack.

* he Sudanese Liberation Army is backed by Eritrea. Until 2003, the group was known as the Darfur Liberation Front. Rebels in Darfour emerged in February 2003 under the name of Darfour Liberation Front. The Darfour Liberation Army announced no connection with the southern rebels, but it called in the middle of March 2003 for "an understanding " with the opposition forces which fight the Islamist government in Khartoum. In March 2003 the Darfour Liberation Front announced it had downed a helicopter that was carrying an official in the province. On 14 March 2003 Darfur Liberation Front announced that the movement will be called the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLM/SLA). The Darfur Liberation Front was a secessionist organisation calling for the secession of the area from Sudan. The SLA, led by Mini Arkoi Minawi, says it wants to "create a united, democratic Sudan."
* The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) appears to have received support from Chad, and some captured rebels were found to have Chadian identification and arms. It is said to be backed by a Sudanese opposition leader, Hassan al-Turabi. Turabi, the former speaker of Sudan's parliament and the ideologist of its Islamist revolution, was removed from office in May 2000 and inprisoned by Sudan's military. During the late 1970s he had worked with Sadiq al-Mahdi, the leader of the Mahdist political party and grandson of The Mahdi.

The Sudanese Liberation Army is a member of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the umbrella opposition organisation grouping. The Justice and Equality Movement is not.

The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) continued to mount attacks in Darfur in April 2003. In response, the Government of Sudan [GOS] stepped up its military presence in Darfur, and according to some reports, had begun attacking local villages in an effort to stamp out the insurgency. Sudan's border area with Chad was declared a military zone by the GOS following a meeting between Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir and Chadian President Idriss Deby. On 25 April 2003, the SLM/A reported that it had seized the airport and Al-Fasher, the capital of Northern Darfur state, and destroyed GOS helicopters and equipment. The GOS refuted this claim, stating that Al-Fashar remained under government control. The authorities in the capital of Southern Darfur, Nyala, imposed a curfew on the city following the clashes in Al-Fashar.

The SLM/A issued statements that it does not seek independence, but demands greater political autonomy and a more equitable share of resources from the central Sudanese authorities. The GOS disputes the SLM/A's claims to be a political organization, labeling the rebels "bandits and armed gangs."

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:04 AM
Kofi Anan is a mobster. The UN needs to get rid of his deadwood A** and get somebody in there who cares about people more than money.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:06 PM
Well I don't believe I placed blame on any nation or organization for what is going on in Sudan. I simply stated that the African Union does not have the resources to stabilize the region on their own and that NATO is doing a good thing by considering to offer logistical support for their peacekeepers. I just feel that the world as a whole should take a more direct role, otherwise were gonna see the same thing that happened in Rwanda in the early 1990's.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:44 PM
Dyepes its a very important topic so


Veritas interesting conspiracy spin :

Ace of Base good debating backed up by the truth.... I think you put a very complex situation in easy view for all

groingrinder please see below for why no matter how much Kofi Annan may or may not in your judgement 'Care' more about money than people he cant do much about it ... I mean wake up! and please .... The Mobster label could equally be used on Bush...but hey there it actually fits because Bush could do something about it if he wanted!Like send in the Marines tommorrow... Wheras any SecretaryGeneral of the UN cannot....What you expect him to do? go on Kofi order in the Aid Workers! I can just see his battle cry now!
'We will fight them in the Aid camps, I offer you nothing but blood sweat and tears....Attack the govt backed rebels now! Aid Workers with your Grain Sacks! Doctors & Nurses with your bandages and Syringes, Pen Pushers use your Pens... Attack'

Muaddib no disrespect meant but It shows from the information and facts Whats really happening in Darfur. Though I do agree there is some government duplicity in this situatuation Vis-a-Vis the rebels.
Also IMO I dont think you understand the Structure, Role and Responsibilities of either the UN or its acting Secretary General, even though you hinted you seemed to in your first post by saying US moves were blocked by the French and Kofi.

To keep it real here as we are talking about real people , civilians suffering-

Yep there is corruption and mismanagemnet in the UN they have made mistakes, what organisation in the world or human hasnt made mistakes?

Kofi cannot order in troops or demand members states of the UN act in a military way under his executive order or request.

The UN is a point of mediation, a meeting place, merging of world powers, but not a world power.

When was the last time anyone saw a judge on the streets arresting 'hoodlums' lol ?

So to shed light on this... its not rocket science..... in this analogy above what weapons would the judge use? What car would he drive? What Radio would he use? get the 'hoodlums'? see Kofi is the Judge the UN the Judiciary and the Police the Armed Forces.

So if Kofi theoretically had these Leagues of UN soldiers what Tanks food and satellites would he use?

None cos he aint got them and he cant.

The Un does get involved yes in aid, medicine, negotiation, mediation, planning, disaster relief, urban projects. Also it has a Legal Remit. But the actual military intervention is done by the Security Council.

The main thing the UN does besides its legal, medical and aid operations is to gather unbaised information, measure and monitor and then either just present the findings or in some cases present findings with recommendations for the Security Councils action. However the UN cannot table a 'motion' before the Security council, a member state must. A passing of a UN Motion is voted on by the Security Council. mandates authorise use under UN or international Law. This is the main weakness of the UN as abviously only issues that have a 'friendly' or 'advantageous' nature to the country voting on, wether to pass a Resolution, that would then give international legal legitimacy to some, or all, of the Security Council's members then deploying their forces multinationaly.

With repect to Ace of Bases factual information and good sourcing on this particular subject I quote "

- Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur
to the United Nations Secretary-General.
Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004
Geneva, 25 January 2005
International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur Report to the Secretary-General

Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, on 18 September 2004 the Security Council adopted resolution 1564 requesting, inter alia, that the Secretary-General ‘rapidly establish an international commission of inquiry in order immediately to investigate reports of violations of
international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to
ensuring that those responsible are held accountable’. In October 2004, the Secretary General appointed Antonio Cassese (Chairperson), Mohamed Fayek, Hina Jilani, Dumisa Ntsebeza and Therese Striggner-Scott as members of the Commission and requested that they report back on their findings within three months. The Commission was supported in its work by a Secretariat headed by an Executive Director, Ms. Mona Rishmawi, as well as a legal research team and an investigative team composed of investigators, forensic experts, military analysts, and investigators specializing in gender violence, all appointed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commission assembled in Geneva and began its work on 25 October 2004.
In order to discharge its mandate, the Commission endeavoured to fulfil four key tasks: (1) to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties; (2)
to determine whether or not acts of genocide have occurred; (3) to identify the perpetrators of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur; and (4) to suggest means of ensuring that those responsible for such violations are held accountable. While the Commission considered all events relevant to the current conflict in Darfur, it focused in particular on incidents that occurred between February 2003 and mid-January 2005.

The Commission engaged in a regular dialogue with the Government of the Sudan throughout its mandate, in particular through meetings in Geneva and in the Sudan, as well as through the work of its
investigative team. The Commission visited the Sudan from 7-21 November 2004 and 9-16 January 2005, including travel to the three Darfur States. The investigative team remained in Darfur from November 2004 through January 2005. During its presence in the Sudan, the Commission held extensive meetings with representatives of the Government, the Governors of the Darfur States and other senior officials in the capital and at provincial and local levels, members of the armed forces and police, leaders of rebel forces, tribal leaders, internally displaced persons, victims and witnesses of violations, NGOs and United Nations representatives.

The Commission submitted a full report on its findings to the Secretary-General on 25 January 2005.
The report describes the terms of reference, methodology, approach and activities of the Commission and its investigative team. It also provides an overview of the historical and social background to the conflict in Darfur. The report then addresses in detail the four key tasks referred to above, namely the 3 Commission’s findings in relation to: i) violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all parties; ii) whether or not acts of genocide have taken place; iii) the identification of perpetrators; and iv) accountability mechanisms. These four sections are briefly summarized below. I. Violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law In accordance with its mandate to ‘investigate reports of violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law’, the Commission carefully examined reports from different sources including Governments, inter-governmental organizations, United Nations bodies and mechanisms, as well as nongovernmental organizations.
The Commission took as the starting point for its work two irrefutable facts regarding the situation in Darfur. Firstly, according to United Nations estimates there are 1,65 million internally displaced persons
in Darfur, and more than 200,000 refugees from Darfur in neighbouring Chad.
Secondly, there has been large-scale destruction of villages throughout the three states of Darfur. The Commission conducted independent investigations to establish additional facts and gathered extensive information on multiple incidents of violations affecting villages, towns and other locations across North, South and West Darfur. The conclusions of the Commission are based on the evaluation of the facts gathered or verified through its investigations. Based on a thorough analysis of the information gathered in the course of its investigations, the Commission established that the Government of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law. In particular, the Commission found that Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity. The extensive destruction and displacement have resulted in a loss of livelihood and means of survival for countless women, men and children. In addition to the large scale attacks, many people have been arrested and detained, and many have been held incommunicado for prolonged periods and tortured. The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other so-called ‘African’ tribes.
In their discussions with the Commission, Government of the Sudan officials stated that any attacks carried out by Government armed forces in Darfur were for counter-insurgency purposes and were conducted on the basis of military imperatives. However, it is clear from the Commission’s findings that most attacks were deliberately and indiscriminately directed against civilians. Moreover even if rebels, or persons supporting rebels, were present in some of the villages – which the Commission considers
likely in only a very small number of instances - the attackers did not take precautions to enable civilians to leave the villages or otherwise be shielded from attack. Even where rebels may have been present in
villages, the impact of the attacks on civilians shows that the use of military force was manifestly disproportionate to any threat posed by the rebels.
The Commission is particularly alarmed that attacks on villages, killing of civilians, rape, pillaging and forced displacement have continued during the course of the Commission’s mandate. The Commission considers that action must be taken urgently to end these violations.
4 While the Commission did not find a systematic or a widespread pattern to these violations, it found credible evidence that rebel forces, namely members of the SLA and JEM, also are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which may amount to war crimes. In particular, these violations include cases of murder of civilians and pillage.
II. Have acts of genocide occurred?
The Commission concluded that the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide. Arguably, two elements of genocide might be deduced from the gross violations of human rights perpetrated by Government forces and the militias under their control. These two elements are, first, the actus reus consisting of killing, or causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life likely to bring about physical destruction; and, second, on the basis of a subjective
standard, the existence of a protected group being targeted by the authors of criminal conduct. However, the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government
authorities are concerned. Generally speaking the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who
planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare.
The Commission does recognise that in some instances individuals, including Government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent. Whether this was the case in Darfur, however, is a determination that
only a competent court can make on a case by case basis. The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as
the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide. "
End of Quote for full Document PDF UN REPORT ON DAFUR CRISIS 25JAN2005

So as is plain from the above the UN was asked to do its job in Oct 2004 and investigate the Crisis, It did this and presented the report in Jan2004 that stated that genocidal acts had taken place However the remit and scope of the report does not have authourity to 'class' it as genocide. However It would take a court to give it that name in international law..... but hey trust me the UN Court will do it in due time. The report calls for action brings the evidence to the Security Council members and calls for action!

However that is all it can do on the issue. And for anyone to use the argument it has been blocked is a little silly as America or britian or russsaia etc could all do it unilateraly now and have real 'legal right' to do it, but trust me they would find what this report states is happening, no missing WMD here.

If America (based on its recent military and legal and moral prescedent in invading Iraq pre emptively) or any other Major global player wanted to intervene of course in a humanitarian role in the Massacre taking place, right now as I write and you read this, could do so because of that precedent and the legitimacy provided by the report its startling truths of the facts and its reccomendations. To be honest its justification would actually in international legal law be stronger than the case was of Iraq, on purely humanitarian edicts.

So its not down to any Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies or any hoodlum secretary generals at the UN or the Brits or even the equally crazy neocons.

It seems obvious to me besides actually Stopping the killing and raping and pillaging of communities...what else have the big players got to gain? any Oil? any really buddy neighbours on the borders? do we need a pipeline there? any big business or money to protect?

I bet If any of us to could say yes to the the above action would be underway now!

Infact can anyone name a international operation at all that has fulfilled just the role of humanitarianism or peace? with no gains or current interests in the area by the intervening parties?

Simple As! but it helps to look at history and and be non biased.
A long post but genocidal acts actually happening now deserve the truth and debate.

Please spare a thought for the innocent civilians. I sincerely hope and will shout for an end to this horrible reality for soo many in the Darfur Region now.


[edit on 4-6-2005 by MischeviousElf]

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:01 AM
Ah nato. They never do anything for any1. At least not until its to late anyway.

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:17 PM

The International Criminal Court has announced an inquiry into alleged war crimes in west Sudan's Darfur region.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by MischeviousElf]

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:52 PM

Am I dreaming?

NATO agreed to Help Sudan?


After 21 Years of War they Decide its time to help huh?

I guess better Late then Never - or is it?

Despite 21 years of conflicts, more than 2 million dead, 6 million forced to flee their homes, thousands of women and children abducted and/or raped and hundreds of villages destroyed and relatives still missing, not one perpetrator of war crimes or crimes against humanity is known to have been brought to justice in Sudan.
Amnesty International

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 10:27 PM
Oil!!!! You have oil and a civil war and we are there.

Because of Talisman’s successful exploration, by 1999 reserves in Blocks 1 and 2 were discovered to be much larger than previously thought—403.6 million barrels in 1998 and an increase to 528 million barrels in reserves in 1999. 8 In 2002, a breakthrough in exploration on Block 4 indicated that there might be an additional 160-240 million barrels of oil in the GNPOC concession.9 By April 2002, it was estimated that current proven plus probable ultimate recovery of the GNPOC concession would be one billion barrels of crude oil.
Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights

Sudan sees crude output over 500,000 bpd by Aug

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 04:15 AM
As far as Kofi Annan and the U.N.s military capabilities (real and perceived) goes, well this was the best manner in which I have ever seen it described:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:40 PM
Croat that report from Amnesty displays the horrors for those people.


cryptorsa1001 Yep I agree they have Oil. And a Pipeline too. I am assuming that from your post you were refering to the end of my last post. I was attempting to shine a spotlight on the reality of the situation with a bit of reality because those poor civilians who this is happening to NOW deserve that respect.

I was trying to look at it from their point of view, microscopicaly, then look at it from the Geopolitical or Macroscopical reference.
All the rest inbetween such as the politics and transferance of blame from the US and other Western Politicans and societies to the NGO's and 'Corrupt Governments' is immaterial now IMHO.

It has been immaterial since the UN Special Report was presented to the Security Council inJAN 2005

Since then its all just excuses as people die, are raped, whole communities being wiped out. Bush or any major world leader could have sorted the situation between their first coffee in the morning and Lunch. How much time is taken up with their time for Iraq in a day do you reckon?

In my last post I didnt think I would have to provide sources for my faith in my opinion in my statement:

It seems obvious to me besides actually Stopping the killing and raping and pillaging of communities...what else have the big players got to gain? any Oil? any really buddy neighbours on the borders? do we need a pipeline there? any big business or money to protect?I bet If any of us to could say yes to the the above action would be underway now!

Well I made a bet on it and even though it was just a phrase I accept you challenge with your 'Evidence'. Your post looked nice However your nice picture dosnt tell the FACTS. Below are some FACTS.

These are the World Proven Reserves of OIL. I have listed the first ten in ascending order then inserted Sudan below. I believe that you cant refute from the list
1. America and other World powers have very strong interests including the military or are using their diplomacy strongly on issues with the entire 10.
2.It is obvious from the figures that an analogy, between the economic and here specificaly oil reserves(to include type volume and investment in its entire infrastructure to include Pipes and their types) ability to be a trigger for the invasion of Sudan and the invasion of Iraq is a non starter.

World Proved Oil Reserves March 2005

Country Billion Barrels
S.Arabia 261.900
Canada 178.8 Alaska US
Iran 125.8
Iraq 115.0
Kuwait 101.5
UAE 97.8
China 18.25
Qatar 15.207
Oman 5.506
India 5.371

Sudan 0.563

Source the US Gov Dept of Energy.

yep sudan has oil, it is not in the bottom of the legue it has more oil than Germany infact. It has ONE Major refinery. Yep its pumping more oil now and the government is selling it indirectly to the US even though they state sanctions are on it.....

Im a bit concerned Trinidad and Tobagoe the Carribean Islands have proven reserves of 0.990 Billion Barrels, maybe they will get invaded next or maybe even some actual assistance, not hollow lies of aid that never materalises after the next Hurricanes.

Please these are real people suffering now at least have the respect not to just Rant or do a google search and 10 seconds later a post. For both them and ATS we all deserve better just the truth and facts. Educate yourselves it helps.

discordant_denizen your pic dosnt even deserve my time genocide is taking place now.

No disrespect meant to anyone.


[edit on 7-6-2005 by MischeviousElf]

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:35 PM
MischeviousElf, I meant no disrespect to you so do not take it that way. I do not see how I dis-respected the people of sudan by my post if anything i dis-respected my own governmnet. You say I did not take the time to see what is going on in the sudan but you did not even know that the civil war going on over there was about oil. Did you look at the web site, did you take the time before you chastised me. By the way I did not challenge you I just pointed out the facts since you did not seem to be aware of all of the facts concerning the civil war.

The web site goes through the entire history of the conflict and it is all about the oil. The civil war is about control of the oil in the Sudan region. 5 years ago 500,000 barrels of oil output a day did not seem like a lot but in today’s world with a tight oil supply that has changed. There are also several areas that have not been explored heavily for oil so there is much more oil than what has been reported so far. Have a look at the website and you might find that you will learn a few things.

On a side note it makes me wonder why people condem the united states for taking out a dictator that was at the top of the list of human rights abuses and then in the same breath say why aren't they taking out this other government for human rights abuse. Is it because those same very people just want to bash the us? That is my guess.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 06:26 PM
A piece I just watched on the Jim Lehrer newshour prompted me to google ATS for related stories and I think this is the best to add to.

So far, 200,000 people have died in the conflict since early 2003 with renewed fighting threatening to cause an end to the ceasefire.

Jan Pronk, UN envoy to Sudan, blamed violence on underfunded humanitarian programs and on a failure by outside nations to provide money and peacekeepers

This 20 year old war just doesn't seem to want to quit. What the answer of the world will be to Jan Pronk's plea, I don't know, but I think he's crying in a wasteland with no-one listening.

On a sidenote, here is an album of drawings done by the children of Darfur.
It pains me to look at them and know what horrors they must have endured to produce them.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in