Stuff Happening in Africa Too

[Art Sandusky 0]

From CNN.com

 

Darfur villagers tell of war's horrors

 

Thursday, July 1, 2004 Posted: 6:37 PM EDT (2237 GMT)

 

AL-FASHER, Sudan (AP) -- First the airplanes come. Then the horsemen who burn, rape and kill.

 

Over and over, terrified villagers told the same story Thursday as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan got a firsthand look at the crisis engulfing Sudan's embattled Darfur region.

 

Annan, accompanied by government ministers and senior U.N. staff, toured one of the 137 camps where some of the more than 1 million people chased from their homes over the past 16 months have sought shelter. He has suggested international troops could be sent to Darfur if the situation does not improve.

 

Sitting on mats shaded by trees, he talked with camp elders and a group of women, and listened to them describe waves of attacks that aid workers have likened to ethnic cleansing.

 

Human rights groups accuse the Sudanese government of backing militias known as the Janjaweed, which are drawn from the region's Arab herders, in a campaign to forcibly remove African farmers from the vast, western region, where they have coexisted, and in some cases intermarried, for centuries.

 

"First the planes were flying over us and bombing us. Then the Janjaweed came," said a 20-year-old woman, who gave her name only as Zahara. "They started to shoot and burn. They took all our belongings. They took men and slit their throats with swords. The women they took as concubines."

 

Zahara, a mother of four, lost her parents in the panic and doesn't know what's become of them. She is now among the estimated 12,000 people living in makeshift shelters of branches and plastic sheeting at Zam Zam camp, just south of the North Darfur town of al-Fasher.

 

Here, at least, there have been no attacks, residents said. But women say they don't dare venture out of the camp for fear of running into the militias they say regularly abduct and rape African women and girls.

 

But with the rainy season getting underway, even the camps pose risks.

 

Dr. David Nabarro, head of the World Health Organization's crisis operations, said Thursday the displaced, who often lack access to clean drinking water or sanitation, could be hit hard by epidemics of diarrhea, cholera, dysentery and malaria.

 

"We anticipate that if things go ahead as they are at this moment, 10,000 people will die in the next month," Nabarro told reporters in Geneva after returning from a weeklong mission to Darfur.

 

Annan -- who is on a three-week tour of the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe -- has raised the possibility of sending international troops to Darfur if Sudan's government can't safeguard the people of the region.

 

Rwandan President Paul Kagame told reporters Thursday that his country is ready to send about 100 troops to protect an observer force in Darfur.

 

U.N. officials call the situation in Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and in a meeting with Sudanese Cabinet ministers Wednesday, Annan said he wanted to see progress in the next 24-48 hours in resolving the conflict, which has killed up to 30,000 people and left some 2 million in desperate need of aid.

 

The United States called on the United Nations to impose an arms embargo and travel ban on the Arab militias in a draft resolution submitted Wednesday to coincide with a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to Darfur. Powell presented the Sudanese government with a timetable to implement its promises to disarm the militias and lift restrictions on humanitarian workers.

 

Powell also gave the government a timetable to negotiate a settlement to the 16-month uprising in Darfur.

 

The Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army, two rebel groups drawn from the region's African tribes, took up arms in February 2003 over what they regard as unjust treatment by the government in their struggle over land and resources with Arab countrymen in Darfur. A cease-fire was signed April 8, but both sides accuse each other of violations.

 

The rebel movements are also confronting Arab militias blamed by humanitarian groups for attacks that have razed hundreds of villages in the area.

Black dots mark where buildings once stood in a satellite photo of a razed village near Fata Borno, Sudan.

 

 

The government denies any complicity in the militia attacks and says the warring sides are clashing over land and scarce water resources.

 

"The government did not use the Janjaweed or ask them to come in (the conflict)," Osman Keber, governor of North Darfur, told Annan on Thursday. "We do not deny that they did a lot of atrocities, but they came by their own agenda."

 

He said the rebels are also committing abuses and reiterated the government's pledge to improve security and disarm all armed groups.

 

In their talks with Annan, Sudanese Cabinet ministers said the government planned to double the number of national police in the region to 6,000.

 

Annan welcomed this commitment Wednesday, saying: "I think we are all agreed ... without security, the people are not going to go back to their villages."

 

"I am happy to hear that the government accepts its responsibility for protection," he said.

 

But for the villagers sheltering at Zam Zam, the news was no consolation.

 

"The ones who hit us with planes, we don't trust them," said 19-year-old Sakina Mohammed Idris.

 

She said she was among 42 girls captured in her village by turbaned raiders and forced on a 21-day journey on foot through the desert. Along the way, the women were raped. When the militiamen tired of them, they were released.

 

"They spoiled me three times," she said bitterly.

 

While the governor insisted stability is returning to northern Darfur, an Iraq-sized region, humanitarian workers said attacks continue, particularly in the west.

 

Over the past week, hundreds of desperate refugees congregated at another site near al-Fasher, hoping for assistance. But when Annan arrived to meet with them Wednesday, the settlement was deserted. Only their donkeys remained.

 

Social Affairs Minister Ahnoun Mohammed Ebrahim pointed to heavy flooding in the area and said the refugees had been moved overnight to a better camp already served by U.N. agencies and aid groups. But U.N. officials said that place was already overcrowded and the refugees were certain to be turned away.

 

A U.N. spokesman in New York said humanitarian workers would investigate the sudden disappearance of the 5,000 people who had occupied the site.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

hasn't Sudan been ignored for decades now?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Which is unfortunate, because the same stuff is going on there as we're currently putting Saddam on trial for. We've got gobs of forces in the area, why don't we iron stuff out there as well, if the same things are going on there as what motivated us to invade Iraq.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Because we really have no reason to care for Sudan. Or Angola. Angola may have diamonds and other natural resources but the country is so loose in the ass from 20+ years of uninterrupted civil war that it's just not worth rebuilding.

 

I mean, it's cold, it's heartless but why should we care? Send the UN. Wait, no, the UN is currently debating a resolution that would allow the creation of a resolution that slaps Sudan on the wrists REALLY hard if they don't stop this shit now.

 

But hey, this news article has shown actual improvement. Somehow. Hurrah.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So why did we care about Iraq? I keep hearing we liberated them and stopped the mass killing and attacks on Kurds and such. It was our duty to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people from a corrupt regime that was harming them and not even coming close to helping.

 

So what's the difference?

[Highland 0]

I'm sure I'll catch flack from the neo-cons on this board, but the primary reason the States went to war against Iraq was the prospect of controlling a stable, oil-rich country in the Middle East, thus establishing a foothold there.

Those speeches about freedom and linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda was just something to convince the gullible masses that would never have supported Bush if he had told them the complete truth, even though it's inanely foolish to go to war without something beneficial to gain.

[NoCalMike 0]

I'm sure I'll catch flack from the neo-cons on this board, but the primary reason the States went to war against Iraq was the prospect of controlling a stable, oil-rich country in the Middle East, thus establishing a foothold there.

Those speeches about freedom and linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda was just something to convince the gullible masses that would never have supported Bush if he had told them the complete truth, even though it's inanely foolish to go to war without something beneficial to gain.

Well then I guess the African citizens better start digging for prospective oil.......

[Art Sandusky 0]

Sudan's got its share of Al-Queda activity as well, if we ever needed some sort of extra reason to intervene.

[NoCalMike 0]

Sudan's got its share of Al-Queda activity as well, if we ever needed some sort of extra reason to intervene.

Not to mention the thugs in charge of the diamond trade. Kids getting limbs hacked off so Zales can get a shipment of diamonds

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Be careful what you wish for, you practically dared the US to invade Sudan because of Al Quaeda activity. Which also applies to Indonesia, Pakistan and others.

This would lead to cries of US hegemony and what not.

 

 

The main reason Sudan is not being cared for is because it's not significant. Iraq is right in the milddoe of a volatile region, Iraq has defied us in the past, Israel (our ally {as much as I dislike it}) has been attacked in the past and actually having another oil rich country instead of Saudi Arabia may just improve the world at large.

 

 

Also: Fuck the children. Kids all over the world are suffering and I'm sick of seeing them used as a justification. Why aren't we invading Algeria? Clit-cutting female circumcision sure as hell is a human rights and child rights violation.

Unless you want a world police, don't ask for it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Africa is a peaceful area?

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Okay. Let me rephrase that. Iraq is the center of a volatile region WE CARE ABOUT.

There's oil there, there's our allies, there's a major threat to us if we don't somehow brush up our image.

 

It's really one of these "in our interest" things.

Why should a leader do something that is not in the interest of the nation they govern? That's just silly and could be seen as violating the oath they took regarding serving the country and its people.

[NoCalMike 0]

Be careful what you wish for, you practically dared the US to invade Sudan because of Al Quaeda activity. Which also applies to Indonesia, Pakistan and others.

This would lead to cries of US hegemony and what not.

 

 

The main reason Sudan is not being cared for is because it's not significant. Iraq is right in the milddoe of a volatile region, Iraq has defied us in the past, Israel (our ally {as much as I dislike it}) has been attacked in the past and actually having another oil rich country instead of Saudi Arabia may just improve the world at large.

 

 

Also: Fuck the children. Kids all over the world are suffering and I'm sick of seeing them used as a justification. Why aren't we invading Algeria? Clit-cutting female circumcision sure as hell is a human rights and child rights violation.

Unless you want a world police, don't ask for it.

I never said anything about invading or being the world police. All I pointed out was that Zales doesn't exactly advertise where a good percentage of their diamonds come from. I also don't believe kids should be maimed and disfigured in order for a "fake" tradition behind the diamond. Sorry if I don't feel good about seeing people with "bling-bling" plastered all over themselves and knowing how a lot of that stuff got here. It would also be interesting to see if a lot of Rappers who pride themselves on how much diamonds they can fit on their hands and faces, would give a shit, that there "African descendant" are being taken into slavery to mine the diamonds.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

I actually mixed my response to you and to Moisty. This kind of stuff usually leads to confusion.

 

Which also means that the premise of my "fuck the children" blurb was unjustified. Can't help but admitting that.

Yeah, it's quite disgusting what people do to people for diamonds or any other riches. And I agree, the diamond business is cut-throat in the most literal sense availible.

 

But really, what are we going to do about that? This is not a rethorical question, I'm interested in discussing possible sollutions.

[NoCalMike 0]

I actually mixed my response to you and to Moisty. This kind of stuff usually leads to confusion.

 

Which also means that the premise of my "fuck the children" blurb was unjustified. Can't help but admitting that.

Yeah, it's quite disgusting what people do to people for diamonds or any other riches. And I agree, the diamond business is cut-throat in the most literal sense availible.

 

But really, what are we going to do about that? This is not a rethorical question, I'm interested in discussing possible sollutions.

Well, I am not about to say go start a war, but maybe if this kind of horror, was shown by the mainstream media and broadcasted then at least a good portion of people might possibly decide against diamonds. I wouldn't doubt stories of the horror have been pitched and broke before, but these Diamond companies are filthy rich and probably have no qualms about paying off networks/reporters etc...to stop them from airing negative pieces about the diamond industry. Not to mention it isn't like we could send reporters into these dangerous places for a field report, lol. My anger on this issue kind of increased when america was running the ads claiming you are supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda when you buy Pot. I mean I really thought it was sick how they used people's fear of terrorism to fuel another anti-drug rant, rather then really explore how terrorists make a lot of their money.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Actually I've seen my fair share of documentaries and reports on this subject. Though they mainly run on German PBCs and the German-French channel that is all grr establishment already anyways.

 

But I think the problem is a different one: This is not happening in the US. No one cares if a bus-load of Pakistani die a firey death due to a large scale accident .. with a bus. Or if Iran suddenly has 300 people less because a fuel transporter crashed and burned up aforementioned 300 people on the street.

 

Now diamonds may be a different business because that actually affects you somehow if you like diamonds. And a few places already offer certificates with their diamonds to prove that they're not bloody (the integrity of such proof is questionable at times, though.)

 

Even if the majority said "no thank you" to blood diamonds the prices would drop at best, it'd still be massively lucrative to control the mines. After all, someone will always buy diamonds below market price.

 

I know I'm being a bit of a wet blanket here but I can't find any sollution.

[Guest MikeSC]

I mentioned this about a week ago and I'll ask the same question:

 

WHY IN THE HELL MUST WE CLEAN UP ALL OF THE MESSES?'

 

We get bitched at, ad inifitum, for "playing the world's policeman" --- but when we DON'T, we get bitched at for "not doing anything".

 

Left --- you can't have it both ways. Either you WANT us to interfere and fix problems or you don't. It is disingenuous as hell to gripe about us getting involved in Iraq but not getting involved here, as the Sudan fails EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT that you claim to have to approve of action.

 

They are NO threat to us. They never WILL be a threat to us.

 

Also, it should be noted, that WE are leading the charge to get ANYTHING done. We are, as usual, dragging the world, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing.

 

And, as I asked in the subject of the thread I started: WHAT THE HELL IS THE UN HERE FOR?

 

They don't fix problems. Their humanitarian record is laughably bad. They are corrupt.

 

We do MORE good than they could ever hope to do. Why in the hell should we even participate?

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'm just asking why we don't intervene here or anywhere else where people are doing the same things or worse as Saddam did.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm just asking why we don't intervene here or anywhere else where people are doing the same things or worse as Saddam did.

If we're such bad guys for interfering in Iraq, why would you support us going into Sudan? Again, they pose no threat to us and the UN hasn't decided that action here is needed (the UN's record on genocide is rather bad) --- using the criticisms of the Iraq war, we have no right to go in there.

 

BTW, we ARE leading the charge to do something.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

The current reason given most for invading Iraq is that Saddam was an awful man and killed his own people and made his country a generally miserable place, so we went in to fix things. I question why we don't use the same line of logic everywhere then.

[Justice 0]

I'm going to agree with Mike here: If you oppose Iraq and the action there, you have no right to say anything about Sudan. Sudan has no history of any sort of military threat against us, nor will it be a military threat in the next 50 years. The UN won't go in. By that criteria, we have no reason to intervine.

 

If you want us to intervine, stop bitching about Iraq, because if Sudan is justified, Iraq is MORE than justified.

[Guest MikeSC]

The current reason given most for invading Iraq is that Saddam was an awful man and killed his own people and made his country a generally miserable place, so we went in to fix things. I question why we don't use the same line of logic everywhere then.

If you believe this, then why the incessant bitching about Iraq? It's completely inconsistent of YOU to gripe about us letting the Sudan genocide happen while OPPOSING us stopping the Iraqi genocide.

 

YOU should be thrilled to death that we aren't "involved" in Sudan (though we are now).

 

And Saddam was a threat to us. Sudan is not.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

The current reason given most for invading Iraq is that Saddam was an awful man and killed his own people and made his country a generally miserable place, so we went in to fix things. I question why we don't use the same line of logic everywhere then.

BECAUSE YOU WILL BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT! That's all you've (Liberals as a collective whole) done with Iraq after we gave that reason, and you still do! You have no right to say anything about Sudan because that's a complete 180 on your own personal policy with Iraq. Tell me that liberals fully approve of the invasion of Iraq, and then we can talk about Sudan. Until then, you have nothing to bitch about because we don't have any UN approval yet. We are following your rules right now.

 

And hell, give us time. Who says we aren't setting up to do something there next?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden for a considerable portion of the mid-90's and currently is a state sponsor of terrorism.

[Justice 0]

Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden for a considerable portion of the mid-90's and currently is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Point in case, they did offer to hand him over in the late 90's. I forget why we didn't take him, though.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because they didn't offer to hand him over (according to Richard Clarke). That was an unfrutiful rumor; they expelled him from the country after the fact, when he had already gone back to Afghanistan to rally up the troops and form al Qaida.

 

And actually, you're not following our rules. We've done nothing but follow your fucking rules, and now that we're on this incredibly wacky and wild mission to fix the world, it's our fucking responsibility to fix these places that are a threat to us (through avowed state support of terrorism), based on the precedent set by Iraq and Bush's preemption policy. No amount of clever rhetoric changes that; we either go into Sudan, or you conservatives are full of eight breeds of shit.

 

At least I'll respect if we go into Sudan. I won't agree with the overuse of our military, but I won't complain about it, either. But if we don't go, we've overseen a travesty.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Going into Sudan? No thanks. No more of our boys need to die for "ungrateful crap country #371A"

 

If the U.S goes into a country with force of any kind then we're imperialists or a "bull in a china shop"

 

If we stay home and don't intervene then we're xenophobic isolationists.

 

We can't win. We just can't win.

 

The solution? The U.S needs to make every effort possible to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Stop meddling in other nation's affairs, stop being so dependent on other nation's resources, stop taking sides in international conflicts, pull out of the United Nations and ALL other global organizations which are undermining our nation's sovereignty, stop exporting our culture of filth and immorality to the rest of the world, close our borders.

 

I once again must say that every issue that we're currently deal with and will face for the rest of our lives comes down to either Nationalism vs. Internationalism and Cultural/Moral relatavism vs. Moral judgment. If you don't understand it now, start to.

[BX 0]

There is no way we could extend ourselves into Sudan, while still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're running close to the edge as it is, no matter what Marney used to say.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

There is no way we could extend ourselves into Sudan, while still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're running close to the edge as it is, no matter what Marney used to say.

Also, there's only like what, 300 million Americans? We can't afford to be sending our young men out there to die. There just aren't enough of us left. Birth rates all across North America and Europe are in sharp decline. There are fewer and fewer peeple with western values living each year. Unless by some miracle western values spread across the rest of the world to "balance things out" then the Western mindset is in danger of becoming extinct.

[BX 0]

Well, that blather was certainly interesting.