African Civil Wars, from Congo to the Sudan - What needs to be done?

Or, to be cruel, just getting fed up that these famine-hit nations haven't cleaned up their act. Ethiopia - cash strapped and desperate. Yet still managed to find the cash to wage a devastating, costly, and endlessly bloody war over a few bits of desert, all for the sake of national pride.

 

Anti-War protestors claim Bush is a detriment to world peace, an evil Nazi dictator, and all that other garbage.

Meanwhile millions of people are killed each year in Africa for purposes of ethnic cleansing, not by whites, but by blacks and arabs. The UN thumbs its nose to this whole situation (what the hell is Sudan doing on the Human Rights Commission?), and instead investigates the U.S. for months on end.

Lets face it, if it were whites killing blacks and arabs, the world community would be all over it, peacekeepers sent, and war trials held. But if it is blacks and arabs killing themselves, it is simply "local tribes conflicting" and none of our business. What's going on in many parts of Africa right now is racism (in tribal form). Of course, no one cares about Mugabe killing all the whites in Zimbabwe, or any of the other atrocities and genocides in Africa, as long as no Western country is involved.

The world needs an organization that WILL actually act to prevent and stop these atrocities, not ignore them and consider lesser problems. The United Nations is quickly becoming The League of Nations, and I support the US whenever we give them the finger.

So, when I see millions of "anti-war" protestors out in the streets, I can instantly recognize them as "anti-Bush" and not "pro-peace". This is because they only seem to care about public military actions of Western nations in which either notoriety can be gained by protesting or they have been indoctrinated by Greenpeace that only the West is bad. They certainly aren't pro-peace, because they only care about the US in Africa and AIDS in Africa, not genocide in Africa.

 

There's a great article in the Economist about the new African Security Council, which will be able to intervene militarily in any African conflict. Anyone read it?

E_S

 

Except its creation still faces many hurdles to overcome if it ever hopes to be effective.

1) The matter of funding, the members of the AU barely have enough funding to cover their own ailing militaries. Serious reforms would have to take place before resources could be diverted to a seperate standing army.

2)Regionalism still shapes African policy. Least of which is Qaddafi's repeated call for his "United States of Africa." Since Libya is one of, if not the wealthiest member, Qaddafi will play a large role in its creation.

Although it is interesting that the major members of the AU, Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon supported the US's action in Iraq.

The danger of course, being that these countries need US support, too much US aid will be viewed as "Yankee meddling.."

 

I think after our beloved Colonel's typically Whacky idea of abolishing national armies for a single African army was rejected, it was made clear that Libya's would be, for all intents and purposes, ignored henceforth.

The problems of the nascent AU are of course large, but not insurmountable. Certainly, South Africa's committment is what counts - provided that they start kicking the stuffing out of Mugabe. I mention him because I don't know who's aware of what happened to the previous pan-African security initiative, after Zimbabwe took over...

Anyways, funding I believe may come in part from the EU, I'll check and get back on that.

ES

 

The problems of the nascent AU are of course large, but not insurmountable. Certainly, South Africa's committment is what counts - provided that they start kicking the stuffing out of Mugabe.

South Africa will stand by Mugabe as long as Mbeki is in power or unless the situation in Zimbabwe starts to hurt South Africa really badly.

 

Certainly, South Africa's committment is what counts - provided that they start kicking the stuffing out of Mugabe.

I agree, but I echo DK's statement as well.

There will be no way that the South African ANC will ever stand against Mugabe and have the ZANU start meddling in their affairs as well.

Such is the nature of their "stasis relationship"

It works, as long as each nation does not get too nosy in each other's affairs.

 

Certainly. But it doesn't mean it's not something we'd not like to see happen to a more deserving little **** than Mugabe.

E_S

 

well, at the very least, he has abandoned his Marxist overtones..

That has to count for something, right?

 

He abandoned Marxism, and finally showed what a corrupt, Marco-Franco tinpot shill he is. (I wonder if the CIA has a chemical agent that will make Mugabe inflate like a balloon and then explode)

Seriously, banning the production of landmines here in the US would be a start, and then really turning on the pressure for China to do the same (I mean real pressure here, not the annual human rights report)

No one has yet to convince me why the American military needs landmines in today's battlefields.

 

No one has yet to convince me why the American military needs landmines in today's battlefields.

Well, in what relation to the topic do you ask this question?

Landmines are what is called a "force multiplier."

They add to your capability in the defense, while allowing you to concentrate your forces for the offense.

The American military has very strict controls in using landmines.

You have to get command authority to even place a mine field, and that placement is documented for later removal.

Additionally, American, British, and Australian (and there might be others) mines self-destruct after a set amount of time, which renders them inoperative.