A Norwegian aid agency is closing down its operations in Sudan’s war-torn Darfur region, citing government interference in its work.
The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) says it is aiding some 300,000 people who have fled their homes in Darfur.
The agency says it has been suspended five times, for a total of 210 days since it started work in 2004.
“We cannot work when the authorities suspend us continuously and do not respond to our repeated requests for dialogue aimed at addressing and resolving underlying reasons for this action,” said NRC Secretary-General Tomas C Archer.
Some 200,000 people have died in Darfur and two million made homeless, with pro-government militias accused of genocide against black Africans.
The government says it is disarming the Janjaweed militia, but a BBC correspondent in Sudan says all the evidence points to the exact opposite.
African Union (AU) peacekeepers say it is very clear that government and militia are working hand in hand.
Governments and NGO’s around the world are trying to help the victims of the ethnic cleansing of Darfur. The government of Sudan continues with politics reminiscent of Idi Amin. Western democracies respond with as much leadership as Elmer Fudd.
To understand this all better read this.
The Darfur conflict is an ongoing armed conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from the tribes of the Abbala (camel-herding Arabs), and the non-Baggara people (mostly land-tilling tribes) of the region.
It’s Arabs butchering non-Arab blacks en masse. It’s that simple. Nobody wants to sound racist, so the West is quiet about it.
An honest to goodness question for the liberals: Should we go into Darfur as we pull out of Iraq?
I don’t have an opinion on the subject, because without a direct tie to the US (which is spin for “oil”), this place isn’t on my radar.
James,
I would love to go to Darfur, as it stands we no longer have a military capable of that mission. Generals all over the place are using the term “hollow”. The military just ask for a 160 BILLION dollar emergency spending bill.
Perhaps if the George Bush and the Republicans hadn’t set out to destabilize that portion of the world, Darfur wouldn’t have happened, or would be as bad? Perhaps if the US was viewed as an honest dealer in international politics we could muster a multinational force to do something about it. As it stands it isn’t even a possibility.
A little bit of their blood in on your hands.
This is tough to say but :
Why do we go into countries where the government wants nothing to do with its people than make them weak ( no food, little education, no rights ,etc ).
Everybody wants to do what they feel is right, but how can you discuss/manage a government that doesn’t want to listen to NOBODY except themselves ?
For Sudan’s people, I just hope humanity will prevail at some point…
Isnt this what the UN is supposed to be about? Its time to send them packing with the neocons.
This genocide has been going on for far too long, years now; and the most powerful nations in the world cannot / will not protect a helpless people from cruel thugs.
I don’t see any diplomatic action that will stop the violence in darfur. Military action seems pretty suitable, now i have no right to say such things because I am not military man. But just as a hypothetical, lets say we go into darfur, would we overthrow the government? Create a new one? Would we destabalize the region, like we did in Iraq? The reason for the destabalization of iraq was becuase we toppled the sunni strangle hold of the government with saddam. Which helped Shiite gain control of a little bit, But now noone is winning, and its an all out civil war, plus a little alqaeda action to mix it up.
But in darfur, they just want to kill a certain type of people, not religious just pure ethnic cleansing. If we were to go there, we might bring alqaeda there, and bring about another nest for extremist to lay there eggs, so it has to be a joint effort include alot of the african countries to help with it. But something must be done, cuase its not going to stop.
The Darfur thing is religois. They are killing Christians. (Killing Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddists is wrong also) Those Christians are black but that isn’t relevant to the problem. This horror is EXACTLY what the UN is meant to combat. But they do diddley squat. The UN is a blow hard.
GregA, Darfur was a mess before Bush. I meet a man a Bishop Eliza Magogo (not sure if I spelled his name right) of the ELCS (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Sudan) And it is the muslim north that have been attacking the Christain/anamilst south. He also said that after the war started in Iraq, that the attacks from the north slowed down.
Oh ya also al-Qaeda’ welcomes US poll see this BBC story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6137082.stm not good.
#7. To blame something like this on “the UN” is kind of meaningless. The UN Security Council is the only institution that could do something about it, and it is dependant upon the will of its permanent members. The US talks tough about stopping the genocide, and it could be argued that by acknowledging that it is “genocide” the US agrees that, as a signatories to the Genocide Convention, it must act.
However, with the US bogged down in Iraq, there is not much we can do. Also, China will block any action by the UNSC because it gets much oil from Sudan and it does not have an interest in seeing forceful enforcement of human rights norms (Tibet, anyone?), so the US would have to invoke that dreaded “unilateralism” again. And the US is not going to do that.
So if anyone is culpable for the inaction on Darfur, it is the US and China.
Do we really want the UN to do anything? For the UN to do something it would have to have both an army and the ability to tax, to fund the army. Who would control this army, not the US, we control very little at the UN. It would be the same people that set the anti-US agenda there today. Remember it was at the UN where China, Venezuela and Iran demanded control over free speech on the internet. Its only the US control over the internet that has kept it free at this point. With the UN having an army we would see more Darfurs not fewer, and it wouldn’t long before we would feel this here.
Few people seem to notice that once again its Muslim, normal everyday Muslim, that are killing Christians. It was Muslims attacking and killing Christians during its spread through Africa and into Spain and France that triggered the Crusades. The secularist leftist PC police forget this whenever they discuss history and the crusades. Again we see Christians killed and enslaved and the secularist/atheist can only attack and condemn Christians, even when they talk about Darfur they talk around the religious dimensions.
I can see from this line of action that when a secularist is presented with the choice of upholding their humanist beliefs or facing the anger and possibility of being killed by a Muslim they choose to remain quite. Its easier to attack a Christian instead, they don’t behead or assassinate you for disagreeing with Mohammad. Notice that no matter how you approach a disagreement with a Muslim they say you are insulting Mohammad. You can put the Virgin May in a jar of urine, but publish a cartoon that essentially describes the state of affairs with Islamic Terrorism and you will find your life endangered. Let’s see what happens with Mohammad being placed in a jar or urine.
The future of any non-muslim is as a Dhimma and I suspect all the current secularist/atheist will quietly go over and become a servent of Islam. Darfur isn’t a isolated incident, it’s the future.
“However, with the US bogged down in Iraq, there is not much we can do. Also, China will block any action by the UNSC because it gets much oil from Sudan and it does not have an interest in seeing forceful enforcement of human rights norms ”
You have proved my point. I see no reason why we should host the UN any further. And to even MENTION China and human rights in the same sentence makes me want to puke.
The UN is a worthless organization based on a great idea.
There simply aren’t a lot of options right now, but a US military intervention is out of the question. Sudan would LOVE to host the next front on the war on terror. Were we to make that mistake, we’d be drug into an operation with no hope of success that would put even more strain on our military and moreover, tie us up to the extent that we’d be unable to provide any assistance to the Fur.
Nobody’s asked for or considered anything like this, however. The plan has been to move a larger contingent of UN troops in to replace the African Union troops who have been providing services to the refugee camps, but Sudan has refused to allow them to enter.
It really needs to be said that for all the attention the subject is getting, there are fifty bazillion pleas to “do something” and nothing resembling an actual plan outside of calls for the President to pressure the UN.
Cripes, at least James is open about being unread on the topic. The rest of the fundie/neocon fiddle-faddle is simply rehashed hate-recordings that have been dribbling from that side of American politics back to the days of Joe McCarthy.
A couple of simple responses that have been proposed include a well-armed force to protect the NGO’s trying to bring in aid + a no-fly zone over Darfur. The Sudanese government provides air support for the jinjaweed thugs all the time.
NATO can assist the UN with both of these — and hasn’t because Bush wants them to fill in the gaps in Afghanistan and Iraq. The several Sudanese governments in the past 25 years have all been involved in ethnic and religious oppression and rarely have been challenged by the U.S. — politically, diplomatically or otherwise — whether they were sheltering Bin Laden or killing Black Africans.
Our Right Wingers, neo-con or theo-con, have never proposed doing a damned thing about any of this — except with a predictable amount of opportunist hindsight. Mainstream fundamentalist Christian Aid groups have been struggling to bring succor to the region for years — and deserve credit for that along with the other NGO’s.
10: Yes, I did notice that. The situation to date has been for a group of nomads (Arab Muslims) to attack the landowning Fur (Black Muslims), thus running them off of their farmland and into concentration camps in the desert. At present, they’re largely preoccupied with simply ensuring that the Fur don’t leave the camps and food aid doesn’t get in.
If you can provide a link to something that would support the idea that this conflict is religious in nature, I’d like to see it, because thus far, I haven’t seen anything that suggested this
Failing that, I’d have to view your post as exploiting genocide as an excuse to troll for Jesus. Quit whining and grab your ankles. You know you love being a victim.
Hey James, stop showing your ignorance. It’s gettig old. There have been major oil reserves reported in Darfur and the Arabs are making a grab for it. Why do you think this is going on in the first place? They will. in turn, do what everyone in Africa has been doing, sell it to the Chinese. Does that sound like a good thing for the USA? Is that in our national interest?
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/111885496661.htm
It’s not on your radar because the corporate-controlled media hasn’t put it on your radar. Think for yourself. Try it. It’s fun. This situation in Africa is ridiculous and here is an opportunity to do something that reflects what are supposed to be our values. Plus there’s the oil if you need a heartless capitalist rationale
#9 – “However, with the US bogged down in Iraq, there is not much we can do. Also, China will block any action by the UNSC because it gets much oil from Sudan and it does not have an interest in seeing forceful enforcement of human rights norms (Tibet, anyone?), so the US would have to invoke that dreaded “unilateralism” again. And the US is not going to do that.”
The situation in Darfur serves to underscore how meaningless human life really is to the nations of the Earth. China, which has historically been a slaughterhouse in its own right, would rather sit by and watch a massive genocide than risk the possibility that their emerging middle class may not be able to buy SUVs in the next decade.
The United States cannot afford to be involved in Darfur right now. I think that is likely more true because the genocide is against poor black Africans and not white Western Europeans.
I don’t know how killing people in Darfur would stop the killing in Darfur, but terrorism is when brutal organized murderers kill innocent people en mass. The US says it is fighting terrorism in Iraq so they don’t have to fight terrorism at home. That’s bullshit. If that is true then the plan was obviously to invade a stable secular nation, disrupt the native’s lives, kill lots of them, destroy thier infrastructure, and invite our enemies to pour over borders and dance with us. We created the insurgency and sparked the civil war and essentially made the world far more dangerous. In other words, poor brown people are less valuable than rich white people.
And because of it, we aren’t available to go to where terrorism and brutal killing is systematically wiping a people off this Earth… and we aren’t even human enough to shed a tear over it.
I see another Rwanda coming with millions killed if they are not at that point already. I see lots of Rwandas in the future. That’s why I believe in a world-policing superpower. Might for right. They could be the only hope to stop this insane bloodshed. In Europe, during the Second World War, the allies claimed they didn’t really have direct evidence of a genocide… otherwise they might have responded differently. Well, this is the holocaust. And it’s well-documented. So what are you going to do about it, world?
Nothing, that’s what. Because the US would be fighting in a foreign war that appears, once again, to be none of their business. Because all it would take are American sons and daughters to be seen coming home in body bags to force a recall of troops. And because the enemy knows this.
So, millions of chidren, women and men will have their lives snuffed out. But thank God, none of them will be our kids. Unless you believe in a country called The Earth.
RBG
It’s good that my old friend RBG and I can come together on this issue, as we have so many times before, and call for immediate action in Darfur.
(what a bizarre planet we live on)
Yes we should get rid of the UN, the world should become a bunch of countries that do not communicate, becuase they would do what we want anyway, it has flaws, and there are countries, that we dont like on it so so we should just get rid of it isolate ourselves, and start the cold war all over again, yes great idea, if the UN isnt PERFECT, lets trash it, who needs a bunch of countries that disagree with us, when we can just invade without notice or diplomatic means, yes great idea.
Under Rumsfeld’s transformations, the US can now easily handle the military invasion of Darfur. The problem is diplomatic. Right now, the US has only invaded 2 countries under this President, on top of the half dozen or so under Clinton. Invading Darfur without clear international support would make that problem worse. But what gets accomplished by going into Darfur? Are you going to have an occupation force for a decade?
#20 – You ever wonder why you guys got bitch slapped on Election Day? Maybe its because you are STILL trying to smear Clinton, who left office with a 70% approval rating about 6 YEARS AGO! 🙂
Find a live horse to beat.
#21.
The Republicans got “bitch slapped” because the people who put them in power were tired of seeing the current crop act as fiscally irresponsible and corrupt as the Democrats they replaced with them 12 years ago. With a populace that is still rather conservative, we’ll see how long this Democratic majority lasts once the bipartisan niceties end and they slip back into form.
21: Since it occurs to me as a Democrat, I’m entitled to eat my own, I will politely request that you refrain from behaving like a neocon. While I’d understand the reflex, AB CD made completely valid points that were not a smear on anyone.
I also see no reason not to agree with them, in fact, I’m finding very little opinion on the subject that does not. There are plenty of people in the blogosphere who seem to think that US military intervention is an option, but they offer no support to this contention.
That anyone could consider rushing into war without a clear strategy… It probably isn’t treatable at this stage.
OK…john, this new system is fucked up. I just wrote a long and detailed post on Darfur and when I went to post it that damn thing you have told me I could obnly post 1 item every 15 sec….only problem was it had been 30 mins since I poseted and I lost my whole post.
For a tech guru your site sure has a lot of bad features.
How is pointing out that Clinton invaded some countries a ‘smear’?
After all the talk against Iraq, how are some of the same people calling for an invasion of Sudan?
#25 – Oh jeez… The right doesn’t utter the word “Clinton” unless it is a smear…
You know… We need to stop all the BS about how both parties suck and everyone is corrupt and it’s time to cooperate and whatever…
Partisan politics is good. Divisiveness is good. Having a right and a left is good. Moderates (which in reality, most Dems actually are) are rarely moderate at heart… It’s just that the soft, mushy, passionless center, where policy is watered down and toothless is a comfy place to go when you can’t must the courage of your convictions.
The right has an ideology. The left has an ideology. They are distinct. Pick one. I have. I’m not interested in bringing everyone to the table, and i don’t give a damn what you think that makes me. I can’t stop anyone from adding their voice, nor would I, but I only encourage support of the left. Because that’s where I think the superior intellect is. That’s where i think problems get solved.
I’m glad Republicans say “liberal” and “clinton” like sailors say “fuck” and “shit.” It’s makes it clear where they stand. Republicans can’t fool you into thinking they are moderate or civil, because they aren’t and they never have been… at least not since Eisenhower.
Clinton didn’t get us into this mess and if Clinton had invaded a hundred countries, it doesn’t change the fact that we are fucked because of one guy and one guy only… The nepotistic Republican silver-spoon baby, George W Bush, whose incompetent leadership has screwed the US so hard it will take decades to repair.
And after all the right wing BS about morals and character in the 90’s, their wreckless disregard to the voters throughout the last 7 years strips them of their right to even mention the name Clinton. That name is far too holy to be spoken by such lessor and unclean people.
#22 – If you think the democrats were corrupt its only because you bought a bullshit bill of goods. It wasn’t true then and it ain’t true now.
#23 – I am not acting like a neocon. You can tell because I am not bleeding the middle class dry while sending the sons of the middle class off to be slaughtered in an immoral and unjust war. Maybe it is reflexive to lash out anytime a right winger whispers the great man’s name… But Christ on the freaking pony… Can you really blame me?
Everyone – I want these sons of bitches to stand in the Hague. Yes, I’m obscenely liberal. Maybe I’m only a Democrat because voting Green would be far more depressing… But I believe in the core that the right has been hurting us since Reagan… and I want them as far from the table as possible. I have no respect for a political systems whose only function is to preserve the status quo while kicking real Americans, those who break their backs for this nation, in the gut at every opportunity.
I’m done now…
Darfur: Is it genocide? By Lewis Meyers
Sudan is on a sea of oil. It is not as if U.S and other Western countries are not paying enough attention. The US has been arming and funding the rebels for a long time. It is very much in their expectation that the Sudanese government reacts with human rights abuses. One day, they hope, this will give them an excuse for intervene and set up a puppet government like in all banana republics.
You know, this isn’t very fun when the only person who takes the bait is the guy who’s name is on the blog, and no one cares to read his post.
– Yes, there’s oil in Darfur, but the idea that it would be automatically sold to China is false. We could easily go in, allow Haliburton to build up the nation’s oil distribution infrastructure, and tap its use for the U.S. only. The government isn’t a problem: We’d go back to the old playbook and install some tinpot as opposed to trying to setup a republic. Note that I’m not saying we should, I’m saying we could. My base question was to see what the barometer was in terms of support for us going in to ‘save’ the people of Darfur… and the barometer reads 50%.
– To say we could distabilize a nation that is already distable is quite an accomplishment… unfortunetly it isn’t true. And I’m not just talking about Darfur, but Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The only nations that have stabilized in that region since the rise of Israel are Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The rest of the place is the wild west, and our “cowboy” mentality has been failing us there for some time.
– John, as much as I appreciate the worship, why so much hate? Just because I’ve yet to be proven wrong… on anything… on your blog is no reason to get pissy. (In other words, why are you trying to out-troll the troll?)
– OhForTheLoveOf, you saying “I’m not acting like a NeoCon” made me laugh, because you’re the farthest thing from one. However, you saying “Having a right and a left is good. Moderates (which in reality, most Dems actually are) are rarely moderate at heart…” made me laugh harder. Having a right and a center is good. Having a left is worthless, and the Democrats can’t win from the left. From my point of view, your opinions are great when they’re argued from the center (which you can take as code for ‘a logical point of view’), but are worthless when they’re argued from the left (which you can take as code for ‘hatred’). I don’t blame you for your MO of not wanting to see the Democratic party continue to get raped, which it has been for the period you suggest, but the way to avoid this is to change your side’s ethos and not attack the right’s.
Thanks for playing, everyone.
24. OT. I’ve experienced the same thing a number of times myself. I’ll sometimes capture the text first just in case it disappears. But it never has. I found if I simply use the back button, my post is still there intact afterwhich It will post properly the second time I send it.
Obviously something not quite right with the system which, I’m going to guess, is part of the original tweaking that was necessary to combat a new level of spam.
More interesting to me is why sometimes my post goes through Capcha (most times); sometimes is is posted directly; sometimes I’m told it will post after editorial review (or similar); and sometimes it says for me to slow down on my posts, even when I haven’t posted. My thinking was that this had something to do with post context or controversial word detection. Not a total inconvenience, but certainly an irritation.
RBG