A Handy Guide to What the Hell...

March 12, 2009 10:37 AM

A Handy Guide to What the Hell Just Happened in Darfur.

ReliefWeb has a couple of maps of the affected populations (both PDFs).

posted by lullaby (47 comments total)

aaand the 'maps' link was supposed to go here.
posted by lullaby at 10:41 AM on March 12

A very nice metafilter-esque treatment of a very horrible situation. Thanks.
posted by pokermonk at 11:00 AM on March 12

Thanks for the link. The comments that come after the article are quite interesting to read.

I would be interested in knowing how the rest of Sudan is reacting to the arrest warrant and to the Darfur situation in general.

The article also mentions the idea that the proceedings be suspended for a year, and that both the African Union and Arab League, as well as China, are pushing for this.

This might be the only option to allow the relief organizations back in, and allow them to regroup and restrategize for next year. Justice is needed, but this is having to choose between a rock and a hard place.
posted by bitteroldman at 11:00 AM on March 12

Asks before clicking: Is this a new depressing thing or a clarification on the previous depressing thing?
posted by Artw at 11:00 AM on March 12

Thank you for posting this.
posted by lunit at 11:02 AM on March 12

However good this blogger's intentions might be in trying to help people understand, he strikes me as being WAY too breezy about this horrifying situation.
posted by Madamina at 11:02 AM on March 12

Ah, new depressing things. And very nicely summarised.

Gloom.
posted by Artw at 11:02 AM on March 12 [1 favorite has favorites]

Millions of people may now starve because the Sudanese government kicked out internation aid workers as retaliation for being declared war criminals. That's both a clarification and a new thing.

Jesus Christ. I want to help, but this is news that, essentially, any help we offer will be refused by the government.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:03 AM on March 12

Thank you for this.
posted by jokeefe at 11:04 AM on March 12

Very well done. Thanks.

This speaks volumes, about not just the Sudan, but any number of other countries:

As someone with a great deal of Sudan experience once told me, Sudanese leaders aren't guided by ideology so much as a simple, overwhelming desire to stay in power. The only question that really matters is "what do I have to do to ensure that I stay in power today, and hopefully tomorrow".
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:07 AM on March 12 [3 favorites has favorites]

Makes me wish CPT was as big as it should be. Go ahead and try expelling them.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:11 AM on March 12

Madamina: I don't think he's too breezy at all; it's nice to have a succinct and non-preachy rundown of the situation. All the relevant facts and numbers are there to give a clear idea of just what a clusterfuck it is, and if anything a little levity in the presentation is welcome considering how depressing and serious the actual substance of the writeup comes off being.
posted by CheshireCat at 11:14 AM on March 12 [3 favorites has favorites]

Millions of people who have been forced to be economic dead weight for years, suddenly being cast adrift. Horrifying.
posted by gurple at 11:18 AM on March 12

TBH I doubt I would have gotten to the end of the non-breezy version before succumbing to gloom.
posted by Artw at 11:19 AM on March 12 [1 favorite has favorites]

What does this guy want to have power over? A pile of bones?
posted by dibblda at 11:42 AM on March 12

Maybe if the people of Darfur sold t-shirts on Twitter...?
posted by Hovercraft Eel at 11:43 AM on March 12

Three international staff working for the Belgian section of Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) were kidnapped from a project in North Darfur last night.
posted by kimdog at 11:45 AM on March 12

While in principle the ICC's arrest warrant seems just, you'd think someone there could've gamed this out and said "we probably shouldn't do this without a plan to actually arrest him and prevent him from retaliating this way." Without that, it's a symbolic move that gives Bashir leverage to do what he just did. Now the ICC or the UN will have to suspend the warrant in exchange for letting NGOs back in to prevent widespread starvation.

Seriously, did no one think of the fucking consequences?
posted by fatbird at 11:53 AM on March 12 [2 favorites has favorites]

What better way to show that the international community that they've got you pegged totally wrong than, through a fit of pique, acting to exacerbate the suffering of a couple of million of your own people.

Personally I think they should put the genocide charge back on the table.
posted by quin at 12:09 PM on March 12 [4 favorites has favorites]

Seriously, did no one think of the fucking consequences?

Clearly not. It was an empty action, and shamefully misguided. The road to hell, and all that.
posted by Mister_A at 12:15 PM on March 12

Wow. So he's holding his own country hostage.
posted by brundlefly at 12:16 PM on March 12 [3 favorites has favorites]

I'm trying to load the main link, but I'm starting to think the server is in Darfur.
posted by crapmatic at 12:18 PM on March 12

followup to brundlefly's comment, isn't it SOP to go ahead and put holes in hostage-takers?
posted by notsnot at 12:21 PM on March 12 [1 favorite has favorites]

Seriously, did no one think of the fucking consequences?

Someone must have made a terrible mistake; it is well known that the UN modus operandi is to only go after countries which happen to give a shit about international law (e.g. Israel). Confronting an actual genocidal dictatorship is certainly out of line.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:47 PM on March 12

here's an AP article on the kidnapped aid workers
posted by kliuless at 1:20 PM on March 12

Wow. So he's holding his own country hostage.

It's working pretty well for Mugabe.
posted by Nelson at 1:24 PM on March 12

However good this blogger's intentions might be in trying to help people understand, he strikes me as being WAY too breezy about this horrifying situation.

Yep. It didn't make me sob, so it mustn't be serious at all. How smug of you.
posted by IvoShandor at 1:28 PM on March 12

I believe that this arrest warrant was incredibly ill-advised. From what I understand, the ICC has no ability to unilaterally extradite a criminal for whom they've issued a warrant. Lubanga was arrested by Congolese authorities and then turned over to the court, as were two of his compatriots. Jean-Pierre Bemba seems to have been arrested by ICC officials, as it happened outside Brussels, but that only occurred after his exile.

To this date, then, the ICC has made no arrests without the direct cooperation of a government, rendering the warrant for al-Bashir as toothless as grampa. It is beyond my ken how the ICC managed to overlook or willfully ignore this crap, putting the blood of a lot of civilians on their hands in the process. Rule number one of diplomacy is knowing exactly how big your stick is, and speaking accordingly.
posted by The White Hat at 1:55 PM on March 12 [1 favorite has favorites]

I would be interested in knowing how the rest of Sudan is reacting to the arrest warrant and to the Darfur situation in general.

Here are a couple of articles that show conflicting responses:
- "Southerners rally in support of Sudan President"
- "Majority of WES citizens think Sudan’s Bashir should comply with ICC"

I serve on the board of a US based NGO that builds schools in Southern Sudan called HELPSudan. Our Founder/Director is currently there on the ground working on a building project. Frankly this situation has us pretty scared for his safety as well as for our ability to continue with projects. So far the NGOs affected are mainly from the Darfur region, but the fear that the Southern regions will be affected is looming.
posted by metacurious at 2:11 PM on March 12

Here's a more current article about the "WES citizens'" opinions:
- "W. Equatoria authority backs GOSS position on arrest warrant"

from the article: "The position of the ruling party of the Government of Southern Sudan is to encourage a strategy for diplomatically opposing the indictment while nevertheless supporting cooperation with the ICC procedures."

Maintaining a diplomatic posture is, of course, a way to hopefully keep violence and direct conflict with the North from re-erupting after the Naivasha Agreement. Maintaining this status quo is getting more difficult and important as Sudan approaches the year 2011.
posted by metacurious at 2:25 PM on March 12

I'm sorry, but this is just the sort of bullshit that our troops should have been able to help sort out had we not gone into Iraq pretending that Saddam was a Bashir. Now we're hamstrung (Thanks, Neocons!) and can only wag our finger in disgust.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:39 PM on March 12

It seems to me that this would be the type of situation which might persuade someone besides the US to intervene. Where is Europe? Russia? Would China ever consider foreign action of this sort?
posted by sonic meat machine at 4:11 PM on March 12

"Someone must have made a terrible mistake; it is well known that the UN modus operandi is to only go after countries which happen to give a shit about international law (e.g. Israel). Confronting an actual genocidal dictatorship is certainly out of line."

So, Israel's complied with all the UN Security Council resolutions now, have they? I'm glad they finally went back to the pre-'67 borders.

And Sudan was one of the best reasons for US international military use of force except that we accidentally missed it and ended up in Iraq instead. Seriously, it's too bad China's doing the development there, because it means that there's no hope of actual UN sanctioned force, and that's pretty much what it needs. African and Arab Leagues are a fucking joke too.
posted by klangklangston at 4:14 PM on March 12

Where is Europe?

Afghanistan?
posted by Artw at 6:35 PM on March 12

(or, in the case of France, wherever the chocolate is)
posted by Artw at 6:36 PM on March 12

this is just the sort of bullshit that our troops should have been able to help sort out

Is the lesson of Iraq really that we should have been doing our state-building in another country rather than not at all?
posted by lullaby at 7:48 PM on March 12

I guess part of me was really believing that on Thursday some beret wearing European Special Forces guys were gonna para shoot in and arrest that Bashir asshole.

This paired with the massive hit aid to Africa is gonna take due to the Melt Down... man Africa is gonna be fucked.
posted by tkchrist at 9:42 PM on March 12

It seems to me that this would be the type of situation which might persuade someone besides the US to intervene. Where is Europe? Russia? Would China ever consider foreign action of this sort?

China has been part of the problem. They make money doing business with Sudan.
posted by eye of newt at 11:01 PM on March 12

Is the lesson of Iraq really that we should have been doing our state-building in another country rather than not at all?

I would say that rather we had no reason to go to Iraq; the Sudan clearly needs an outside force besides the NGOs that are there only to keep those alive who are able to flee the massacres. You're right, though. We obviously have no idea to do with a country once we've, uh, 'fixed' their problems. Afghanistan was retribution, and Iraq- I really have no idea why we ever sent troops there. Either way, neither of these were excuses for killing our citizens in some far away country. Stopping what's happening in Africa right now, though, seems to me to truly be worth risking the lives of our armed forces for.
posted by KingoftheWhales at 11:14 PM on March 12

"Is the lesson of Iraq really that we should have been doing our state-building in another country rather than not at all?"

Well, really, it was WWII that taught us that military force is always wrong, especially to stop genocide, and that nation-building only leads to more enemies.
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 AM on March 13

And Sudan was one of the best reasons for US international military use of force except that we accidentally missed it and ended up in Iraq instead.

I knew we shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:17 AM on March 13

Stopping what's happening in Africa right now, though, seems to me to truly be worth risking the lives of our armed forces for.

It's not the intent I'm questioning - clearly what's happening in Sudan is devastating, and worthy of attention. (Though I suppose I could argue why Sudan instead of Congo or Zimbabwe or...) But I'm thinking less about whether Sudan needs help and more about the feasibility or effectiveness of US military intervention in Sudan. What would we do there? Regime change, I'm assuming? And then an occupation of Sudan to protect Darfuri civilians and do some rebuilding? All the while drawing in regional rebel groups or assorted folks who'd like to fight Americans?

I don't know. I was in Iraq in the fall of 2004, already after Bremer handed it over to the interim government, but still kind of in the "what the hell do we do now?" phase. Maybe I don't have enough imagination, but I can't really envision US military intervention in Sudan being anything but another giant clusterfuck.

And I would point out that (some) people used similar reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. Evil leader, humanitarian crisis, and so on. Considering Sudan's natural resources, people can even reuse their 'no blood for oil' signs.
posted by lullaby at 8:07 AM on March 13

One of the reasons I asked my questions above (oh, and thanks for the answers, metacurious) was to see how the rest of the population feels about the present situation.

If the majority of the populace were supportive of al-Bashir and/or indifferent to the plight of the people of Darfur, then an invasion would be a band-aid solution at best.

If a foreign army invades, and doesn't follow up with some serious and effective rebuilding, it is almost natural that there will be a revolt, no matter how good the intentions are of the invaders. This is not Hollywood or a video game. Smart bombs are not smart enough only to kill the bad guys. This is not the Wizard of Oz, where after the Wicked Witch is killed, the armed thugs rejoice and praise their former leader's assassin.

Why did things work out the way they did post WW2? I don't know, but maybe we have to start thinking that those rebuidling successes were exceptions rather than the rule.

Besides, it is so much easier to fight back nowadays. It is easier for a rebel to obtain guns and bombs and communications equipment that prior was reserved only for government troops with money. Troops are bound to more strict rules of engagement and even when these are ignored (i.e. the latest incursion of Israel into Gaza) there still will be rebellion.

The only recent exceptions I can think of where an invading army was successful was when Russia went into South Ossetia to battle the Georgians, and when Iraq invaded Kuwait (granted, it was short lived) - and those same two countries had suffered terrible losses prior - the Soviets, in Afghanistan and Iraq, against Iran.

So how about a propaganda war - why not battle al-Bashir's lies about the West with the truth about our intentions? You will never change (the majority of) people's mindsets with sticks. You can only do so with words and good deeds.

Why not fund all of al-Bashir's opponents (who are advocates for peace)? Surely the money spent here will be far less than the price of an armed incursion as well as the hospital and healthcare bills of soldiers who are sure to become injured.
posted by bitteroldman at 10:03 AM on March 13

"What would we do there? Regime change, I'm assuming? And then an occupation of Sudan to protect Darfuri civilians and do some rebuilding? All the while drawing in regional rebel groups or assorted folks who'd like to fight Americans?"

Yep. Basically, a peacekeeping mission.

"Maybe I don't have enough imagination, but I can't really envision US military intervention in Sudan being anything but another giant clusterfuck."

Yeah, see, the problem is that you're going from an absolutely inept government, one of the worst executive branches in the history of America (arguably only second to the guy who got us into the civil war), and thinking that means that we can't do anything right. It's like arguing that because the Katrina relief was a total cock-up, we shouldn't bother helping out folks the next time a hurricane hits.

"And I would point out that (some) people used similar reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. Evil leader, humanitarian crisis, and so on. Considering Sudan's natural resources, people can even reuse their 'no blood for oil' signs."

That's called ad hominem reasoning. Military force is either justified or not based on the circumstances, not who supported it. And in the case of Darfur, the justifications have the advantage of being true. (But it won't happen, because of Bush's fuck up. He went in opposed to nation building and got a result that confirmed that we shouldn't do nation building. Just like he went into the executive branch with the idea that government is always corrupt and inept, and ran it to prove so.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:04 AM on March 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

the problem is that you're going from an absolutely inept government, one of the worst executive branches in the history of America (arguably only second to the guy who got us into the civil war), and thinking that means that we can't do anything right.

I'm not entirely just thinking about the Bush Administration being miserable fuckups. While many of Iraq's reconstruction problems were/are rooted in mishandling that could presumably be improved upon 'next time' -- I'm questioning whether the US military can really be appropriately used to solve a crisis like Sudan's without simply creating an even bigger humanitarian disaster, and if US Army infantrymen are really meant for state-building.


Military force is either justified or not based on the circumstances, not who supported it.

I wasn't trying to make a criticism of particular people or supporters. More that we can say "there's a humanitarian crisis, we must go in" but that doesn't mean the use of US military force is an effective response.
posted by lullaby at 1:29 PM on March 13

Also, the three kidnapped MSF staff have been released.
posted by lullaby at 2:26 PM on March 13

"I'm questioning whether the US military can really be appropriately used to solve a crisis like Sudan's without simply creating an even bigger humanitarian disaster, and if US Army infantrymen are really meant for state-building."

Right. And I direct you to Germany and Japan, where we managed to do state building just fine without creating a bigger disaster. Even further, peacekeeping missions with US forces (whether under NATO or UN auspices) generally go pretty well, like the intervention in Bosnia. Feel free to ask DeeXtrovert about it. Somalia was a failure primarily because the mission, as conceived under Bush I, lacked operable objectives, was underfunded and greatly over-estimated the support from other countries.

And frankly, there is no one else. In terms of effective security operations, if the US doesn't spearhead the effort, other countries simply don't have the infrastructure to initiate a large enough operation to maintain a country-wide effort.

Look, I understand the skepticism. I understand the legacy of post-war American interventionism, especially as it relates to the Middle East and Latin America. On the other hand, I reject the knee-jerk support of pacifism as the only just foreign policy. We are dealing with murderers, with genocides. We have, or had, the power to stop that, to interrupt it. Would innocents die? Absolutely. Would more innocents die if we did nothing? Absolutely.

Not only that, but let's look at the skepticism about whether GIs should be doing nation building.While I think they should as long as there's no one else, there are other people. Our foreign policy deliberately alienated the UN and tried to keep international involvement out of the reconstruction process. That was dead fucking wrong. Does that mean that we shouldn't intervene in a genocide? No. It means that we should get in, use military force to achieve military objectives, and use US GIs to protect the folks who are doing the nation building.

Hell, I'll even say that I wasn't against the invasion of Iraq in theory. Saddam Hussein was a murderous asshole. Removing his regime could have been a net good for the region. However, the practical downsides—that we did this alone, that we did this without a good plan, that we did this without any fucking clue, that's the reason that I opposed the war. We knew before the first boot hit the ground that the intelligence was bad, that Bush was full of shit, and that it wouldn't work the way they said it would. Our ineptitude set back progress in the Middle East by at least a generation. But that doesn't mean I'm against progress in the Middle East or that I oppose military force. And, frankly, Obama is one of the few folks I'd trust to use it judiciously.
posted by klangklangston at 2:29 PM on March 13