Countdown to Genocide

[MOBIUS]

30th of September

The day that the AU troops are slated to leave Darfur...

[Lorizael]

*shrug* we've got a week and a half. Clever thread title btw.

[Ninot]

MOBIUS is right, let's nuke the place Sept 30th.

[C0ckney]

it's already a genocide.

but what are we going to do when the government of sudan has said that it won't accept a UN force under any circumstances?

[Arrian]

The AU troops are actually preventing genocide/ethnic cleansing now? Wow, things are better than I thought.

So, which country is gonna send troops? Big bad imperialistic crusader zionist oppressor America appears disinclined.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by C0ckney
it's already a genocide.

but what are we going to do when the government of sudan has said that it won't accept a UN force under any circumstances?

Didn't they already do that, saying they wont allow UN troops to "re-colonialize" the country? Ha, that will teach those evil imperialists!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The AU troops are actually preventing genocide/ethnic cleansing now? Wow, things are better than I thought.

So, which country is gonna send troops? Big bad imperialistic crusader zionist oppressor America appears disinclined.

-Arrian

My impression is that while AU force is inadequate, its at least kinda sorta keeping a lid on things. Its not good to use a band aid when you need a torniquet, but taking away the band aid is still a bad thing. Sometimes a very bad thing.

IIUC they now have troops lined up mainly from Africa and Asia. Not ideal perhaps, in terms of military effectiveness, but more politically palatable, and definitely available. (but thats no better than the AU force, you say - not clear, UN would have more reliable financing, better support, a larger total number of troops, and perhaps at least a few first world troops - and of course some of the Asian militaries in question are pretty good)

[Odin]

Unfortunately the UN will do nothing because Sudan is protected by China's veto on the UNSC.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by C0ckney
it's already a genocide.

but what are we going to do when the government of sudan has said that it won't accept a UN force under any circumstances?

Well that leave two choices on the troops front now doesn't it. You either send them anyway (invade really) or you don't.

Since going in may put you in a direct shooting conflict with Sudanese regular forces and not going in probably leads to massive deaths, I am wondering about other options.

I assume that the numbers make any real evacuation pretty much impossible (although I understand a lot of people have fled to Chad ) and that arming the intended victims better is a non-starter (inneffective and possibly leading to even more deaths in reprisals). I don't know that sanctions would do much since my reading indicates that most of the killings are done by militias aligned with but not necessarily controlled by the government

So I throw it out there .. . What would be an effective world response? Could a heavily armed "peacemaking" force accomplish anything?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well that leave two choices on the troops front now doesn't it. You either send them anyway (invade really) or you don't.

The third option is you wave a package of carrots (aid, etc) and sticks (sanctions) at Sudan in hope they will consent. It is, as Odin said, made more difficult by the prospect that China will veto any really tough sanctions. OTOH the Chinese over the years have NOT been all that eager to use their veto - they really are cautious, see the advantage of a peaceful rise, and dont want to be the bad guys at the UNSC. The challenge therefore is to put together an overall strategy that is respectful enough of Sudanese sensibilities that the Chinese will not be inclined to veto. Thats probably one reason for a mainly african-asian force.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



IIUC they now have troops lined up mainly from Africa and Asia. Not ideal perhaps, in terms of military effectiveness, but more politically palatable, and definitely available. (but thats no better than the AU force, you say - not clear, UN would have more reliable financing, better support, a larger total number of troops, and perhaps at least a few first world troops - and of course some of the Asian militaries in question are pretty good)

That seems to be a reasonable approach. As for the quality of the troops, my impression is that any force with a reasonable level of discipline would be sufficient if they are there with the consent of the Sudanese government. I didn't understand the militias to be particularly well-armed or trained and I doubt they would see much advantage in taking on an organized force

[BeBMan]

I think China would have a hard time to explain a veto if all others were basically united and for a certain course of action.

[Pekka]

Sudan has criminal leaders. We should line them up and shoot them. None of the lives of those murderers are worth any of the dead so far.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The third option is you wave a package of carrots (aid, etc) and sticks (sanctions) at Sudan in hope they will consent. It is, as Odin said, made more difficult by the prospect that China will veto any really tough sanctions. OTOH the Chinese over the years have NOT been all that eager to use their veto - they really are cautious, see the advantage of a peaceful rise, and dont want to be the bad guys at the UNSC. The challenge therefore is to put together an overall strategy that is respectful enough of Sudanese sensibilities that the Chinese will not be inclined to veto. Thats probably one reason for a mainly african-asian force.

Well that does seem like a glimmer of hope, then.

-Arrian

[Tattila the Hun]

What interest does China have in Sudan?