AU Troops staying in Darfur, Sudan refuses U.N. Peacekeepers

[Publius]

UNITED NATIONS - The African Union said Wednesday it will extend the mandate of peacekeeping forces in Darfur through the end of the year, ensuring that international troops will remain in the war-torn Sudanese province for now.

The United Nations will provide material and logistic support to the mission, though Sudan is still resisting demands that the U.N. take over the mission from the AU, said Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaore, head of the AU Peace and Security Council.

The decision was made in a morning meeting of the AU body also attended by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. When al-Bashir left about halfway through, he withheld comment except to shout "No!" when a reporter asked if he would allow the U.N. to take control of the peacekeepers.

An underfunded African Union force in Darfur has been largely unable to stop the violence in Darfur. Both the AU and the U.N. Security Council have called for the U.N., with its deeper pockets and better resources, to run the mission.

For now, the AU mission will be reinforced and infused with U.N. support with logistics and material, Compaore said.

"Sudan is disposed to work with the United Nations," he said.

The United Nations and many rights groups say that fighting between rebels and government-backed militias in Darfur has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million since 2003.

Yet al-Bashir denies there is a major humanitarian disaster there, and said Tuesday that human rights groups have exaggerated the crisis in Darfur in a bid for more money.

"The picture that volunteer organizations try to give in order to solicit more assistance and more aid, have given a negative result," Omar al-Bashir told a news conference.

During that news conference, he also said U.N. peacekeepers there are meant to protect Israel, carve up Sudan and get access to its oil reserves. He accused Jews of spreading propaganda and organizing anti-government rallies in the country.

In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly earlier Tuesday, President Bush called the Darfur killings a genocide, and said the AU force is "not strong enough" to protect the victims. He called for the force to be strengthened and demanded the U.N. take control.

The United States and its allies are now weighing whether there are other options for confronting al-Bashir's government, including the possibility of military intervention despite his objections.

First off, at the President of Sudan trying to turn this into an effort to defame Israel and spewing the same sort of rhetoric as Iran. The man is much closer to insane than I thought... I simply do not understand this complex that leaders of Muslim and semi-Muslim nations have about seeing Israel's hands in everything, it's pure insanity.

Secondly, as much as I don't want to involve the U.S. in more military adventurism, I think there are certain times when one must engage in military operations for the greater good. This strife in Darfur is helping no one, and is harming millions. I think the U.N. should take over the military operations there, so long as the U.S. is not expected to shoulder the burden of an overwhelming logistical, monetary, and military role... Of all instances where an international coalition should (and I think would) be formed, this is definitely the most pressing one.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Publius

First off, at the President of Sudan trying to turn this into an effort to defame Israel and spewing the same sort of rhetoric as Iran. The man is much closer to insane than I thought... I simply do not understand this complex that leaders of Muslim and semi-Muslim nations have about seeing Israel's hands in everything, it's pure insanity.

Secondly, as much as I don't want to involve the U.S. in more military adventurism, I think there are certain times when one must engage in military operations for the greater good. This strife in Darfur is helping no one, and is harming millions. I think the U.N. should take over the military operations there, so long as the U.S. is not expected to shoulder the burden of an overwhelming logistical, monetary, and military role... Of all instances where an international coalition should (and I think would) be formed, this is definitely the most pressing one.

I'm with you.

I'm still torn and I don't like when we force ourselves on other nations, especially when we do it alone. But something needs to be done here. I'm all for an international force run by the UN taking over operations there. We have waited too long already.

[Diesel66]

african union Those guys couldnt even keep Sierra Leone peaceful after the South African mercs beat back the rebels.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Publius

First off, at the President of Sudan trying to turn this into an effort to defame Israel and spewing the same sort of rhetoric as Iran.

What do you expect? It works. Just look at some posts on this forum. Israel is an easy scapegoat.

[Ardentfrost]

I don't MIND the UN stepping in for peacekeeping reasons, but I don't like our prez starting to talk like we're just going to go in and do it ourselves.

It's a bad situation, and I certainly hate to see a war torn nation fucking it's civilian population. Maybe if instead of peacekeeping troops, they were helped to relocate. Certainly a lot of them don't want to be in Sudan anymore

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm still torn and I don't like when we force ourselves on other nations, especially when we do it alone. But something needs to be done here.

Wow, sounds familiar...

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Wow, sounds familiar...

Not really.

I said we shouldn't do it alone and comparing the humanitarian need in Darfur to Iraq is foolish.

[Stylerod]

As long as it has nothing to do with National Security or to our National Interest, it's ok to invade another country. It's only if WE get something out of it that it's wrong.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

As long as it has nothing to do with National Security or to our National Interest, it's ok to invade another country. It's only if WE get something out of it that it's wrong.

You sure showed that strawman who's boss.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You sure showed that strawman who's boss.

Did you like that

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

As long as it has nothing to do with National Security or to our National Interest, it's ok to invade another country. It's only if WE get something out of it that it's wrong.

yep, that's exactly what we said.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Publius

yep, that's exactly what we said.

No, that's what I said.