You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa: Horn
Thousands more troops for Darfur
2004-10-02
Sudan has agreed to the deployment of some 3,500 extra African troops in its war-torn region of Darfur. The soldiers, along with some 800 police officers, will be tasked with monitoring a shaky ceasefire between rebels and the government. The troops will still not be allowed to use force against combatants.
Real useful.
The African Union have confirmed that Sudan has agreed to reinforcements but could not confirm numbers and said nothing had been signed. UN officials say they hope the new troops coukld be on the ground by the end of the month. Sudan insists that their main mission will be to protect camps for the estimated 1.5 million people who have fled their homes. It has refused to accept a peacekeeping mission, saying the troops are monitors. There are currently some 300 Nigerian and Rwandan troops in Darfur, under the flag of the African Union (AU). A United Nations resolution backs an expanded AU force in Darfur but last week, African leaders said they needed hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the extra troops.
Let's see: 3,000 troops, modest African wages for a soldier ($300 a month??, with 90% raked off by the politicos), x 1 year is about $12 million or so. Double it for logistics -- heck, triple it. Wonder where the rest of the money goes?
Sudan is stopping the existing 300-strong peace team from doing its job, a journalist who spent time with them has told the BBC. South African journalist Benjamin Joffe-Walt told the BBC's Network Africa that Sudan would often refuse to give fuel to the AU monitors while its attack helicopters were in the air. "When the helicopters returned, the fuel started pumping," he said. Many of the observers said this was common, he said. Mr Joffe-Walt said that morale in the AU team was low as a result. In addition to the weak mandate, another problem they faced was that representatives from both the rebels and the army had to approve each report and they often refuse to do this if either side is accused of breaking the ceasefire. "Most commanders say it is incredibly difficult to issue a report," he said.
And this is what John Kerry wants more of in Sudan.
Posted by:Steve White

#3  Let's see: 3,000 troops, modest African wages for a soldier ($300 a month??, with 90% raked off by the politicos), x 1 year is about $12 million or so. Double it for logistics -- heck, triple it. Wonder where the rest of the money goes?

Not to the AU forces. This from an AP release (cited by Fred):

"...Lack of basic goods _ including vehicles, uniforms and tents have kept a significant number of the existing force from even starting work, African and European authorities say. U.N. Sudan envoy Jan Pronk asked European nations last week to help with planes, vehicles, fuel and other needs, including planning." [emphasis mine]

So the intent is to add 4300 troops and police to a discouraged force that's already under-equipped, under-supplied and has to rely on the Sudanese government for aircraft fuel.

Isn't UN multilateralism wonderful...
Posted by: Pappy   2004-10-02 1:49:53 PM  

#2  What a simple solution, all this needs to take. Let Darfur return to a duned arrid desert, let the migrants merge into their neighboring lands. Let those neighboring lands accept the refugees with open arms, or shoot them down like dogs at the gates; so we can get back to our beer and football!
Posted by: smn   2004-10-02 3:20:25 AM  

#1  
The troops will still not be allowed to use force against combatants.
So they're French? Then what is the point of them being there, except to present more targets?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-10-02 2:14:24 AM  

00:00