Genocide, massale verkrachtingen, 200.000 doden, and counting...

[Mark Giebels]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Las ik gisteren nog in mijn krantje..

Groeten,
Mark Giebels


A no-flight zone is key  
Kurt Bassuener International Herald Tribune

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006
  
  
SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina Last month the African Union took 
the groundbreaking step of acknowledging that its more than 
7,000-man force in Darfur, western Sudan, was incapable of stopping 
the Khartoum government from its continued brutalization of the 
civilian population, and that it would support being relieved by a 
larger, stronger United Nations force, as mooted by the UN 
secretary general, Kofi Annan. 
  
Annan said an effective force would require state-of-the-art 
equipment to prevent the murders, rapes, and mass displacement that 
have long been hallmarks of Khartoum's war in Darfur. 
  
Annan recognizes that air power is essential if Darfur's civilians 
are to be protected from their own government and the janjaweed 
raiders to whom it has outsourced conduct of its genocidal policy. 
The African Union force's lack of tactical air power has long 
limited its ability to conduct its mission, which remains under 
threat of Sudan's air superiority. 
  
The AU command confronted Khartoum with documentation of its use of 
air power against the civilian population last autumn, with 
photographs of an attack committed by its air force on the Abu 
Shoek refugee camp. Such attacks will continue so long as they 
remain possible.
  
The ability to protect civilians will remain crippled until an 
international protection force has complete air superiority over 
Darfur, denying flight to the Sudanese air force. Such a no-flight 
operation would also have the ability to provide close air support 
to that force and conduct air strikes on targets as requested by 
the force commander. 
  
The current AU force is vulnerable to retaliatory strikes by the 
Sudanese air force. Having air superiority would deter further 
attacks on civilians on the ground, as well as prevent them from 
the air. In addition, such a no-flight zone would assist both the 
protection force and humanitarian assistance by providing real-time 
aerial surveillance of Darfur, an area the size of France. A 
no-flight zone is also essential to bridging a transition from the 
underpowered AU mission to a stronger UN force.
  
Control over Darfur's skies can be established quickly from 
France's air bases in Chad, which are already equipped for 
operations by tactical fighters. There is also a wealth of tactical 
air power available from NATO air forces. A former U.S. Air Force 
chief of staff, General Merrill McPeak, told the Washington Post a 
year ago that the assets needed to conduct such a mission are a 
mere 12 to 18 fighter aircraft, 4 AWACS/AEW control aircraft, and 
some additional support planes and personnel. This option has yet 
to be embraced by NATO, but the need has now been articulated by 
Annan. 
  
If NATO is serious about its assistance effort in Darfur, it should 
offer air cover to the currently mandated AU force immediately. By 
so doing, it would preclude the requirement to get UN Security 
Council approval, bypassing likely resistance from Russia and 
China, which are both deeply economically engaged with the Khartoum 
regime. 
  
A no-flight zone would limit Khartoum's ability to prevent an 
effective UN follow-on force. In fact, establishing a NATO 
no-flight zone to serve the ongoing African Union mission would 
make more likely the fielding of a UN-mandated ground force capable 
of protecting Darfur's population.
  
There remains an appalling policy vacuum on the part of the United 
States and Europe toward Darfur. Assistance by NATO and the EU to 
the AU force has never included the air power that could so rapidly 
change the situation on the ground. 
  
If the West is serious about stopping the mayhem in Darfur and 
offering real protection to the uprooted civilian population, it 
needs to summon the fortitude to cease treating Darfur as 
collateral damage of the Iraq war and other policies that create 
friction with the Muslim world, and offer the sort of assistance 
that only it can provide - both in the air, and on the ground.
  
(Kurt Bassuener is a senior associate at the Democratization Policy 
Council, a trans-Atlantic initiative for accountability in 
democracy promotion.) 

------
  
A genocide that America can help to stop  
By Kenneth H. Bacon The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006
  
  
WASHINGTON How can the United States best use its monthlong turn as 
president of the UN Security Council, which it assumes Wednesday? 
It could start by devoting itself to ending the violence in the 
Darfur region of western Sudan - violence that President George W. 
Bush has characterized as genocide.
  
There is precedent for such action. The last time the United States 
assumed the rotating presidency of the 15-member Security Council, 
it made a real contribution to peace in the region.
  
John Danforth, then the ambassador to the United Nations, brought 
the entire Security Council to Kenya to pressure the government in 
Khartoum and the insurgents in the south to end their 21-year civil 
war. The tactic worked. Shortly afterward, Khartoum and the Sudan 
People's Liberation Movement signed a comprehensive peace 
agreement.
  
Unfortunately, that agreement did nothing to end a separate 
conflict in Darfur, where government-backed Arab militias, in 
response to insurgent attacks, have driven more than 2.2 million 
people, primarily African farmers, from their land and bombed, 
burned and pillaged hundreds of villages. By some estimates, more 
than 200,000 people have died in the last three years.
  
John Bolton, the current American ambassador to the United Nations, 
has called for bold action in Darfur but has provided no real 
leadership for more effective moves to stop the violence.
  
Bolton should follow Danforth's example and schedule a meeting of 
the Security Council in Darfur. This would focus the world's 
attention on a war in which civilians are the primary targets and 
directly involve the Council in the push toward peace.
  
Even if Bolton can't pull off the trip, he can still focus the 
council on Sudan. His first priority should be strengthening the 
woefully inadequate peacekeeping forces there.
  
Right now, there are 7,000 African Union peacekeepers in the 
region. But this force is simply insufficient to do the job. Only 
by sending UN troops can we possibly bring some measure of peace 
and stability to Darfur.
  
This won't be easy. Details about the size, mandate and cost of a 
new UN force in Darfur need to be worked out; opposition from 
Khartoum's allies, Russia and China, which can veto any Security 
Council action, may need to be overcome. But as Security Council 
president, Bolton should push for enough peacekeepers - possibly 
backed by Western air power - to prevent attacks against civilians.
  
Bolton, who has called for stronger enforcement of arms embargoes 
against Sudan, should demand the release of an unpublished UN study 
listing those countries that ship weapons to rebels and 
Khartoum-backed militias. Then the council should use this 
information to punish sanctions scofflaws.
  
The United States has a vexing and inconsistent record on Sudan. 
Periods of engagement have been followed by longer, and troubling, 
periods of inaction. Now, with a month to lead the Security 
Council, the United States has a chance to show the world that we 
can do more than just talk about genocide.
  
(Kenneth H. Bacon is the president of Refugees International.)
  
Mark Giebels


-- 

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********