Should NATO go into the Sudan

[cormacobear]

Should The African Union, Canada, and the U.N. response force based in Khartoum send a stabiliztion force into Sudan, despite China's intention to Veto any resolution?

Does the ethnic cleansing massacre outweigh objections?

[bolshevik butcher]

Yes, NATO in conjunction with the UN. Ie nato should rpovide the troops for a UN force.

[h&s]

The UN and NATO can not be trusted to do the right thing. They will only ever go into a country for personal gains. I'm always very wary of military involvement - even if it was done by a true workers state - its not really up to us to get rid of oppressive regimes.
This issue is a hard one, but I think that we should think beyond the immediate situation.

[OleMarxco]

Perhaps, seeing as it's bad as it is now any help would be good, as it can't probably become worse...or can it? Anyways, if anyone SHOULD help them, it should be US...as in the proud people of RevLeft. Ah, what the hell, what does it matter. We're here to help, right? Who's with me? :D

[viva le revolution]

NATO nor the U.N can be trusted. NATO is basically an extension of the U.S military and the U.N has shown it's incompetence time and again. The only foreign assistance that i think would help is the African union. However i think they do not possess the drive nor resources for this venture. Any foreign military intervention will come with it's own hidden agendas.

[cormacobear]

Well the violence has doubled since The Sudanese government said they would put an end to it. Canada has agreed to send 150 troops mostly officers, money and is donating a signifigant amount of older equipment, however the main body of troops is to be provided by the African union. I think sending a force in is necescary they job isn't to change the sudanese gov't but to stop rebels, and renegade Sudanese militsry units from attaking settlements in one province. It will whether the potential good outwieghs the potential bad will depend on the wording of the mandate so I guess we'll have to wait and see what it says.

[jagjkdfblfjasl;gj]

No, NATO and the UN should NOT go into the Sudan, what kind of sick fucks are you people?

[Phalanx]

Somebody has to stop the genocidal militias, and i'm sure it won't be the Sudanese government. As long as the militias are killing Sudanese of Black African origin, and not Arabic ethnicity, they don't give a shit. Fucking human race pays so much attention to the color of one's skin

[OleMarxco]

As I said and I repeat, if anyone, it should be "us leftists" comin' to the rescue. We have a world to win. They too - Should embrace Communism as soon as we have gotten rid of the corrupt Sudanese government - to be free of the debt of the World Bank. Arm every loyal member of RevLeft and let's head down to kick some serious genocide-milita arse! :D

[Colombia]

Let them go into the Sudan. Whethor or not it is for imperialist purposes, if it can stop the genocide than go for it.

[RedAnarchist]

I agree. They can stop the genocide. The UN and NATO did nothing in Rwanda and Burundi in 1994 to stop that genocide., and they should show the Africans that they value them as much as they value the rest of the world.

Gemocide is such an evil concept. Why do people kill others based on such superficial divisions? :(

[Jersey Devil]

The poster that created this thread seems to be confused about NATO's possible role in Darfur. NATO has never said they will go into Darfur but only that they may help the African Union with logistics.


Let them go into the Sudan. Whethor or not it is for imperialist purposes, if it can stop the genocide than go for it.
Unfortunately many people here would disagree with you. They'd rather have a genocide occuring in Darfur then to have the "imperialists" there.

[RedAnarchist]

What?!

Some people here would rather people died simply beacuse of the colour of their skin, just because they'd rather not see imperialists in Sudan? Thats crazy and thats thinking only of their own idealogy!

[Jersey Devil]

Look at the posts above us. "How dare you let those imperialists in!" "NATO should play no role in Darfur!" etc... Seems some people are so blinded by their so-called "ideologies" to understand that something needs to be done.

In regards to China's intention to veto a resolution, it is quite possible that they would, which shows why the UN should consider eliminating veto power. China would only do so for sole interest as they currently recieve oil from the Bashir government.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Yes they should imperialism or not.

[Commie Girl]

Yes, they should.

[cormacobear]

Because of the likelyhood that a UN mandate will be defeated the missions organizers, including Annan, have been seeking a NATO mandate to which there has been little response. It has been speculated that Canada's token involvement may have been sought to ensure a NATO mandate which is far more likely to happen with Canada involved.

What that mandate intails will be the determining factor, will it be as useless as the UN mandate in Rawanda or will it have some teeth. Who will be trying the captives. What will this mean to the Sudanese governing over Darfur which has tolerated if not facilitated these attacks. we'll have to wai and see

[Guerrilla22]

I can't believe people on here are suggesting NATO should do something. NATO's idea of peace keeping is launching massive bombing camapigns against civillian infastructure. That's not going to help anyone. The AU is already there, but like the UN peacekeeping force they're not allowed to actually engage anyone, unless directly engaged themselves. So both the aU and UN peacekeeping forces are useless. See Somalai and Rwanda.

Besides, most NATO countries have troops in Iraq, not to mention the most influential member, the uS, who kind has its hands tied at the moment. They don't care that some dark people are killing each other.

[Severian]

"Something must be done." Passive voice. The question is, who?

Looking to imperialism to solve these kind of problems is totally wrong. It's the nature of their system to create and perpetuate all kinds of national, religious communal, etc., conflicts.

Only working people can resolve this stuff.

Incidentally, most of the estimated deaths in Darfur are from hunger and disease, not directly from violence. And if you're going to look at the causes of hunger and disease, it's not just war, but also imperialist economic domination and underdevelopment.

Specifically in Sudan, U.S. imperialism simply has no interest in doing anything anyway. At most, they'll let it bleed for years as in Yugoslavia. They'll hypocritically proclaim that "the world can't just stand by" while doing exactly that. Then, conceivably, they may eventually intervene when both sides are sufficiently exhausted, and impose some settlement which will require continued intervention to enforce it, because it resolves none of the underlying problems.

And as I pointed out in this recent thread on Sudan, (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34855) the intervention of imperialist powers has in fact helped fuel recent conflicts in Africa. For example, Rwanda, the example most often cited as the consequence of failing to intervene.

French imperialism helped train the militias which carried out the genocide, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/22/news/rwanda.php) while Washington aided the Rwandan Patriotic Front rebels. (http://www.freedomfiles.org/articles/rwanda.htm) This has continued with U.S. aid to Rwandan intervention and Rwandan-supported rebels in the DR of Congo. (http://www.africaaction.org/docs97/rwan9708.2.htm) (Scroll to the bottom for "CONCERNS RELATED TO U.S. POLICY".

The same is true of a number of recent conflicts in West Africa: various imperialist powers have supported various sides of the wars, helping produce and intensify them.

So why, then, would anyone think that intervention by the imperialists is the solution to Sudan's conflicts?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 9 2005, 01:06 PM
The poster that created this thread seems to be confused about NATO's possible role in Darfur. NATO has never said they will go into Darfur but only that they may help the African Union with logistics.


Let them go into the Sudan. Whethor or not it is for imperialist purposes, if it can stop the genocide than go for it.
Unfortunately many people here would disagree with you. They'd rather have a genocide occuring in Darfur then to have the "imperialists" there.
NATO sending logistical aid would be just a way for Western Europe and the US to act like they are actually doing to solve the problem, without having to actually do anything. THe AU has a peacekeeping force on the ground, however like the UN the AU peacekeepers are not allowed to engage anyone unless directly engaged themselves. Basically they are standing by and watching the massacre happen without being able to do anything about it just as the UN did in Bosnia and Rwanda.