The Cool Blue Blog

Neutral ground?

So the Sudanese government in exile have decided to sit down and talk peace with the terrorists who recently wrested control (such as it is) of the country.

And where did they choose to do it? In the new terrorist state of Somalia, of course. And it's being brokered by none other than the Arab League who could give a rats ass that the member state Somalian government is commiting genocide in the Darfur region of its country.

The interim government of Somalia and the Islamic Courts movement which took control of the capital Mogadishu this month began their first direct high-level talks in Sudan on Thursday.

Delegations from the two sides met under Arab League auspices in the Sudanese capital Khartoum after mediators held separate meetings with them in the morning in an attempt to avert a confrontation which could extend years of conflict.

The meeting got off to a rocky start, however

The government has infuriated the Islamists by calling for international peacekeepers and saying Muslim fundamentalists from around the world helped them secure Mogadishu.

No kidding?

Allies of Osama

In his recently released video tape, Osama bin Laden wants his followers to impose more murder and mayhem in Sudan, as if there wasn't enough there already with the government sanctioned genocide in the Darfur.

Osama bin Laden issued ominous new threats in an audiotape broadcast Sunday, saying the West was at war with Islam and calling on his followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed U.N. force....

"I call on mujahedeen and their supporters, especially in Sudan and the Arab peninsula, to prepare for long war again the crusader plunderers in Western Sudan. Our goal is not defending the Khartoum government but to defend Islam, its land and its people," bin Laden purportedly said.

"I urge holy warriors to be acquainted with the land and the tribes in Darfur."

This is a situation that the US has dubbed "genocide" while the UN will only go so far as to call it a "grave humanitarian crisis.

The US has supported efforts for more severe action against the Sudanese government in the UN but has been blocked by Russia and China.

The two powers, joined by Qatar, used their position on a UN sanctions committee to block the imposition of a UN travel ban and asset freeze on four unnamed Sudanese, including one government official, proposed by Britain.

The United States, which backed the British initiative, reacted angrily by threatening to call a public vote of the 15-nation Security Council that would force Russia and China into making a formal veto.

And, of course, the Arab League, of which Sudan is a member, won't take action against Sudan: the victims are all black and Christian after all

Interestingly, these two countries, China and Russia, are also opposing sanctions against Iran as well and as a result, sanctions against both Sudan and Iran will never come about through the UN.

But when has the UN ever been effective at anything?

You would think that China and Russia are on the same side as the terrorists, but of course, it's more complicated than that. China has oil needs and has huge oil interests in Sudan and in Iran.

Russia is just our enemy. Still.

But what difference does it make if they are Osama's allies or not

If they act as if they are?

Sudan Gold

When US Speed Skater Joey Cheek won his Gold Medal at the Winter Olympics, he used his moment of fame, and prize money, to highlight a global embarassment.

...he announced he was donating his $25,000 gold-medal prize to the "Right to Play" charity championed by famed Norwegian speedskater Johann Koss. He implored his sponsors to match the offer, to help 60,000 displaced children in the Darfur region of the Sudan...

"I thought if I ever got this chance, I wanted to make it meaningful," Cheek said. "I've learned how news cycles work. I know there's a gold medalist tonight, and tomorrow there's another gold medalist. So I can either take the time and just gush about how wonderful I feel, or I can use it for something good."

And, it seems the US Government may be ready to risk being called anti-Muslim again by intervening in what the Bush Administration has deemed "genocide"

In a move that ultimately could lead to the deployment of U.S. troops to Africa, President Bush on Monday agreed to work with the United Nations on the creation of a new international force to stop ethnic killings in Sudan's Darfur region.

Although Bush made no commitments on a possible role for U.S. troops, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he favors American participation in the peacekeeping mission.

Gee. I wonder why. Could it be that the UN has been so woefully impotent in doing anything positive there except for exploiting children for sex?

And since the Arab League, of which Sudan is a member, won't step in, somebody has to.

Where's the Love?

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been tough on the Sudanese government for their participation in the ethnic cleansing of the Darfur region.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says there has been progress in Darfur but the world will not accept mere promises from Sudan's new government to halt the violence...."We don't rely on words, we rely on action," Rice said.

Still, she went to Sudan to encourage the new coalition government that was formed when a separate civil war was settled some months ago.

For its part, the Sudanese government wants US economic sanctions lifted. But it's hard to win concessions when you rough up the US Secretary of State's delegation.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's official visit with President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir of Sudan turned ugly Thursday when Sudanese security officers manhandled members of her delegation and the news media, blocking their way to the meeting in the presidential palace.

Rice said she was "outraged" and demanded an official apology, which the foreign minister delivered by phone a little more than an hour later. But it was clear the incident left her angry, and it worsened an already difficult relationship.

"They had no right to manhandle my staff," she said afterward, adding, the Sudanese "still have a long way to go."

Well that's for sure. But even though members of the press were manhandled, and in one case, an NBC reporter was involved in fisticuffs with Sudanese security after he tried to ask a question about Darfur, very little has been made of this incident by the press. And this even though the Secretary's senior advisor was shoved into a wall in front of their eyes.

Imagine what the reports would have been had US security had done that to a Sudanese delegation?

Surely Sudan showed no love and the Secretary continued on her trip. Now she is in Lebanon after a trip to make sure Israel does their part to settle things down. Her surprise visit is intended to show support for the newest Democracy in the region. And she also showed respect.

On arrival she went directly to visit the shrine of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Harriri. Rice held talks with the Lebanese senior officials regarding the latest developments in Lebanon and the bilateral cooperation.

And she did not call for Syria's isolation. Problamatic as that government has been for the US, the region and Lebanon in particular, she encouraged Lebanon to make peace.

"We would like to see the day when there are good neighborly relations between Syria and Lebanon based on mutual respect and equality," Rice said in a joint press conference with Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Foud Saniora.

But she was talking to Syria too

"But good neighbors don't close their borders to their neighbors," she said referring to tightened Syria security measures that have delayed or stranded hundreds of Lebanon vehicles at the two countries' border. "It is a very serious situation on the Lebanon border, where Lebanese trade is being strangled. "

But her trip to Lebanon can be summed up by her own words

``What I'm here to do is to support the new Lebanon,'' Rice said. ``The new Lebanon is one that is democratic; the new Lebanon is one that should be free of foreign influence. It is a Lebanon in which the Lebanese should make decisions for Lebanon.''

Can you show any more love than that?

And no one tried to beat her up...

Anti-war crowd played the Ace

The US Government has raised the stakes for the Sudanese government. On Friday, both the House and the Senate passed unanimous resolutions declaring that the govenment sanctioned killing of tens-of-thousands amounts to genocide.

Secretary of State Colin Powell will go to the UN this week proposing sanctions against Sudan. But such sanctions have been opposed by France which has oil interests in the region.

Russia, another permenant member of the Security Council is against sanctions as well. Sanctions would limit their ability to sell weapons to the Sudanese government.

While the EU does not have a seat at the Security Council they are threatening sanctions of their own. One has to wonder if this is not a rebuke to the French Foreign policy stance with regards to Sudan.

Britain has already drawn up plans to send 5,000 troops to the Sudan and Austrailia is considering the same.

Both the Bush Administration and the UN have refrained from using the word "genocide" because by calling it such, military action would be required under international law to deal with the situation.

Congress is definitly attempting to force the hand of the Bush Administration. But are they willing to follow though with war authority, and money for troops to join Britain and Austrailia?

There is little doubt that the Sudanese government will not back down without a serious threat to it's integrity. And since it seems that France, Russia, and China have taken the sanction card off the table it would seem that this is not a threat to Sudan.

Given all of the vocal dissent about US adventures in Iraq, is it possible that Sudan feels confident that the US will not stand against it militarily?

Have the anti-Bush crowd (in conjunction with the neo-Marxists and anti-war crowd) taken away the card that would have allowed us to settle this diplomatically; the credible threat of a military committment without actually having to do it?

Actions have consequences. If we do have to send troops into Sudan and fight to protect a people from genocide, it is likely that it was the anti-war crowd that precipitated this.

How ironic, don't you think?

 

Well, there are people in the darkness
And they just can't see the light
And if we don't say it's wrong, then that says it's right.
We got to feel for each other,
Let our problems know we're here,
Got to get the message and send it out loud and clear,
Cause none of us are free,
None of us are free,
None of us are free,
If one of us is chained,
None of us are free.

-Solomon Burke

France: Death for Oil

The government of Sudan, you might recall has been engaged in "ethnic cleansing" in the Danfur region of the country. The UN has been dragging it's feet for months and until the US Secretary of State Colin Powell visted the region, they had done little but study the situation. The US, meanwhile has been working the street.

Now it has come to the point where the US is asking the UN to impose sanctions against Sudan, but according to the BBC, France will oppose such sanctions.

Why would France oppose a non-violent measure to attempt to stop genocide?

Perhaps the answer is oil.

France's TotalFinaElf has oil interests in Sudan, just as they had oil interests in Iraq. France tried to have the  sanctions against Iraq lifted in 1997 but the Clinton administration refused to cooperate.

I wonder if one can discern a pattern here.

Interestingly, Canada, China, Sweden and Austria, all have oil interests in Sudan.

The US doesn't.

When push comes to shove, Colin Powell said it best:

"All I know is that there are at least 1 million people who are desperately in need, and many of them will die if we can't get the international community mobilized and if we can't get the Sudanese to cooperate with the international community."

France has a long history of enabling dictators for personal gain and it seems that trend is not going to come to an end any time soon.

(hat tip to Instapundit)

While the UN waffles, the US takes action. Again.

U.S. Seeks Libyan Role in Sudan Crisis

Posted: 05/28
From: Newsday

By GEORGE GEDDA
May 27,, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The United States and Libya are discussing possible use of that country as a transit point for delivering humanitarian aid to western Sudan, where fighting has left hundreds of thousands of people at risk of starvation or disease.

The administration has been undertaking costly airlifts of assistance to Sudan's Darfur province and is seeking land routes as an alternative. Libya has a common border with Sudan, as does Chad, with which U.S. officials also have had discussions.