Where is Russia? Germany? France? (non-F911 related)

I am listening to NPR reporting on the trouble in Sudan and thinking that this would be a good job for an international "police" force to take care of...something like what the U.N. should be. Since the U.S. is obviously occupied with other things at the moment, can't one of the above mentioned countries step up to the plate and lend assistance?

What do you think?

killing black people. Why would the Europeans care?

I'm glad they opposed the Iraq war, but Europe is pretty useless when it comes to these sorts of things.

Remember the Balkans?

...the U.N. pass toothless resolutions while there are plenty of things that both could be doing.

While there is some truth in it, the statement has the ring of Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" BS. That Europe didn't do it alone, doesn't mean that it is unable to do so.


While the necessity of some Balkan missions is still in question, it became an example for effective coalitions and peacekeeping.

just unwilling. I'm not going to let them off the hook just because the neo-cons said something stupid about the same collection of countries. Throwing money at the Sudanese people isn't going to keep them from getting massacred. I would support sending our troops there to keep peace but there are none left.

As to troops: The UK and Germany are occupied elsewhere (Iraq/ Afghanistan) and have little to no troops left to spare. The UN is active - whatever that might mean.

...available out of all the U.N. members. I can't see what good money will do at this point; the government in Sudan sounds pretty non-functional.

the problem is that it's encouraging the killing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3690557.stm

For months, the Islamic government in Khartoum, together with traditional Arab militia, have been accused of pursuing a scorched earth policy in western Sudan.

Everything we saw, everything we heard, suggests that this is true.
...
She says she lost her husband, brothers and aunts in an attack on her village.

"The government and the Arabs come together. They kill and they shoot from the planes."

Money will help the refugee camps that are under UN control:
UN pleads for new Darfur funding

The United Nations has asked for an extra $55m in emergency funds to care for refugees from Sudan's troubled Darfur region who have reached Chad.
The existing 2004 budget of $20.8m is inadequate to care for the 200,000 people expected to receive care in UN camps, the refugee agency said.

The problem is how to stop the root problem, ie the government and the militia. This probably needs troops; but given the complete screwup in Iraq, it would be a lot better to have the full (moral and logistical) backing of neighbouring countries before Europeans wade in saying they know best and are going to show the Sudan government who's boss. The UN is an appropriate forum for getting that backing.

...seriously screwed up would be best. :)

When nations go to war, it's not for humanitarian reasons, democracy or freedom, it's always for their own interests. Nobody offers troops or money for "nothing".

BTW it isn't humanitarian to wait until the situation is escalating -- like in Sudan today -- and send some troops after the killings began. Humanitarian is to prevent such escalation. So the right question would be, why did Russia, Germany, France and the rest of the world nothing to avoid the situation in Sudan? The escalation didn't come by surprise, the signals were clear. But it's always the same, you can find many examples for that: Rwanda, Congo, Nigeria and so on.

n/t