Wednesday, March 08, 2006

UN and NATO to Darfur?

Noticed something in this article that Austin Bay didn’t make a note of (but might have seen anyway).  Basically the article is talking about how the UN and NATO are considering replacing the overwhelmed African Union troops who are there keeping the peace.  Genocide continues, and the Sudan government and peoples living in the north part of the country are speaking out against UN intervention.

Really, that means they are opposing someone coming in to break up their little genocide party.  I found this statement kind of funny:

      “In the south they are there to help, but in Darfur this will just be a front for Israel and America to come in to get our oil,” said demonstrator Amal Jaafar.

      Sudan produces roughly 330,000 barrels per day of crude, mostly from fields in the south.

That last line thrown in by Reuters makes the statement by the demonstrator look pretty foolish.  But I was thinking that the statement is far more hypocritical seeing as China has most of the interest in the oil coming out of the Sudan, and the oil interest in the Darfur region in particular. 

So let me get this straight, you trust that the UN and NATO have the best interest of the people in mind in the south were most of your oil comes from currently, but trying to stop mass murder in Darfur is only because we want to come in and “get” your oil.  Hmmm.

Frankly, a statement like this infuriates on so many levels it’s staggering.  They sound a tad concerned about the people’s in the south, but up until a few years ago they were doing their best to practice the art of genocide down there too.  The difference being that those in the south seem to know how to organize and fight back.

Sudan is railing on about how the UN is going to “invade” their country.

      “The UN invasion of Sudan” — that’s what replacing the African Union peacekeepers with UN troops (and NATO-supplied troops) will amount to. Why? The Sudan government objects to the change, for many reasons. One reason: the peacekeepers would mo e from monitoring to peace enforcement. NATO troops would serve in strike and rapid reaction units– meaning the militias of all stripes would be out-classed and out-gunned. NATO would provide air strike and air lift support (so far the UN has asked for air lift, but made the request in terms of “air support”). NATO would provide maintenance assistance.

Color me skeptical that transferring management of the peacekeeping mission from AU to the UN is going to help the Darfur peoples from their aggressors.  My hope for them here is that NATO sounds like they want an active roll, and they are more likely to provide direct relief in the form of military exercises against those terrorizing the civilians.

No comments: