Sudan next?
Any intervention in Sudan would, I think, go against the grain of current defence policy.....
1. Deployment of ground forces to protect refugees.
Apart from the obvious issue of what forces would be free, what support would they need? Helicopters? If so, where do you base them? Logistics? Where and how? Medical? Already Overstretched. Air support/air defence - see below.
2. Specialist logistic/medical etc personnel to aid refugees.
Same issues as above.
3. Embargo on oil exports.
This would need UN authority, and would require frigates/destroyers to implement it, backed up by Nimrods (basing and possibly AAR support issues), and possibly submarines acting as ISTAR assets. All these all already overstreched, and will be even more so in future after the latest cuts.
4. No fly zone.
Sudanese aircraft (including MiGs) have been used to attack the black Africans. A no fly zone would be a possible response, but where do you base the aircraft? Could the UK contribute given the decline in fighter numbers? Perhaps carrier based aircraft could be used, but the range would mean tanker support would be needed. What if the Americans are unwilling to play and it falls on other carrier possessing nations? What if UK/European/Western forces suffer air attack - the Sudanese Government has said it will oppose outside forces.
5. Anything without US involvement....
After Somalia, the US are likely to be reluctant to get involved in that part of the world. Therefore the increasing reliance on US support would not help.
1. Deployment of ground forces to protect refugees.
Apart from the obvious issue of what forces would be free, what support would they need? Helicopters? If so, where do you base them? Logistics? Where and how? Medical? Already Overstretched. Air support/air defence - see below.
2. Specialist logistic/medical etc personnel to aid refugees.
Same issues as above.
3. Embargo on oil exports.
This would need UN authority, and would require frigates/destroyers to implement it, backed up by Nimrods (basing and possibly AAR support issues), and possibly submarines acting as ISTAR assets. All these all already overstreched, and will be even more so in future after the latest cuts.
4. No fly zone.
Sudanese aircraft (including MiGs) have been used to attack the black Africans. A no fly zone would be a possible response, but where do you base the aircraft? Could the UK contribute given the decline in fighter numbers? Perhaps carrier based aircraft could be used, but the range would mean tanker support would be needed. What if the Americans are unwilling to play and it falls on other carrier possessing nations? What if UK/European/Western forces suffer air attack - the Sudanese Government has said it will oppose outside forces.
5. Anything without US involvement....
After Somalia, the US are likely to be reluctant to get involved in that part of the world. Therefore the increasing reliance on US support would not help.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be mistaken but I think there may be a problem with Brits entering the Sudan. Not too happy with the old colonial masters. Visa problems or something along those lines, I believe. However, 100 tonnes of armour makes a pretty effective visa......
209,100 bbl / day ain't worth a light. That's only twice the daily capacity of BP's smallest UK field. Don't think that's worth going to war over even by B. Liar's standars.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't get involved in this one myself, spent 3 months operating from Khartoum with 46 Sqn some 30 years ago. Flying mainly to Wau and Tonj in the South of the country, the civil war was then 10 years old! All this talk about carriers, visas and the like. If you want to go in why not operate from Southern Egypt or call Ghaddaffi's bluff and use one of his southern strips/oasis across the border? Fond memories of Gordon's Dance Hall and the brothel on 12 street (Just looking of course!). I still have my original sword from Omdurman made out of a flattened 45 gall oil drum. Keep out, use threats, leave it to the aid agencies...
BBC this eve.
The UN Security Council has warned the Sudan government that it must halt atrocities by Arab militias in the western Darfur region within 30 days.
A US-drafted resolution demanding that Khartoum disarm the fighters was passed with two abstentions.
The vote was only passed after the US dropped the word "sanctions" and added economic and diplomatic "measures".
But Sudan's information minister has rejected the UN move, according to Reuters news agency.
"Sudan announces its rejection of the Security Council's misguided resolution," Information Minister Al-Zahawi Ibrahim Malik said in a statement quoted by the agency.
And the resolution has been criticised as a "failure" by one major aid agency. The only thing the UN Security Council has delivered is... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped
Representative of aid agency in Darfur
Up to 50,000 people have died and more than a million have fled their homes in Darfur.
The Janjaweed, the main Arab militia group allied with the government, has been blamed for mass rapes, killings and burning of villages in Darfur.
The resolution was backed by 13 council members; China and Pakistan abstained.
'Disaster'
US Ambassador John Danforth told the Council after the vote: "The government of Sudan has left us no choice. It has done the unthinkable, it has fostered an armed attack on its own civilian population, it has created a humanitarian disaster.
DARFUR CONFLICT
1m displaced
Up to 50,000 killed
More at risk from disease and starvation
Arab militias accused of ethnic cleansing
Sudan blames rebels for starting conflict
Q&A: Darfur conflict
Sudan's media defiant
"The responsibility for this disaster lies squarely on the government of Sudan," he said.
The newly passed resolution calls on Sudan to make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters. It has 30 days to comply.
It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report also in 30 days on the progress made in each of those areas.
The US removed any specific reference to sanctions in the resolution after objections from seven members - including China, Russia and Pakistan - who believe Khartoum needs more time to act.
But the resolution's sponsors say the substance of the threat remains in the wording of the text.
It notes that the Council "expresses its intention to consider further actions - including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations - on the government of Sudan, in the event of non-compliance". Article 41 provides for sanctions to be applied.
China and Pakistan remained dissatisfied with the wording. Explaining its abstention, China said it believed measures were unnecessary and Khartoum had been co-operating.
Darfur has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis
Aid agencies, meanwhile, charge that the resolution has been fatally weakened by the changes.
"The Security Council have today proved unanimous in their inaction," the representative of one major aid agency working in Darfur, which wanted to remain anonymous, told BBC News Online.
"This watered-down resolution contains no urgency and offers precious little help to the people of Darfur," he said.
"The only thing the UN Security Council has delivered is... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped.
"While diplomats sit in New York and procrastinate, the people of Darfur are dying. The government of Sudan will be celebrating yet another failure to call them to account."
'Fear remains'
Meanwhile, the World Food Programme has said it will begin a series of airdrops targeting 85,000 people in isolated regions of West Darfur in three days.
Along with those who have died or have been displaced in the Darfur conflict, an estimated 2.2 million people are in urgent need of food or medical attention.
Ramiro Lopes da Silva, the WFP country director, said that insecurity, heavy rain and logistical challenges were continuing to hamper the work done by humanitarian organisations.
He warned that the climate of fear and intimidation still existed in Darfur.
UK to commit Air Drop assets???
The UN Security Council has warned the Sudan government that it must halt atrocities by Arab militias in the western Darfur region within 30 days.
A US-drafted resolution demanding that Khartoum disarm the fighters was passed with two abstentions.
The vote was only passed after the US dropped the word "sanctions" and added economic and diplomatic "measures".
But Sudan's information minister has rejected the UN move, according to Reuters news agency.
"Sudan announces its rejection of the Security Council's misguided resolution," Information Minister Al-Zahawi Ibrahim Malik said in a statement quoted by the agency.
And the resolution has been criticised as a "failure" by one major aid agency. The only thing the UN Security Council has delivered is... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped
Representative of aid agency in Darfur
Up to 50,000 people have died and more than a million have fled their homes in Darfur.
The Janjaweed, the main Arab militia group allied with the government, has been blamed for mass rapes, killings and burning of villages in Darfur.
The resolution was backed by 13 council members; China and Pakistan abstained.
'Disaster'
US Ambassador John Danforth told the Council after the vote: "The government of Sudan has left us no choice. It has done the unthinkable, it has fostered an armed attack on its own civilian population, it has created a humanitarian disaster.
DARFUR CONFLICT
1m displaced
Up to 50,000 killed
More at risk from disease and starvation
Arab militias accused of ethnic cleansing
Sudan blames rebels for starting conflict
Q&A: Darfur conflict
Sudan's media defiant
"The responsibility for this disaster lies squarely on the government of Sudan," he said.
The newly passed resolution calls on Sudan to make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters. It has 30 days to comply.
It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report also in 30 days on the progress made in each of those areas.
The US removed any specific reference to sanctions in the resolution after objections from seven members - including China, Russia and Pakistan - who believe Khartoum needs more time to act.
But the resolution's sponsors say the substance of the threat remains in the wording of the text.
It notes that the Council "expresses its intention to consider further actions - including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations - on the government of Sudan, in the event of non-compliance". Article 41 provides for sanctions to be applied.
China and Pakistan remained dissatisfied with the wording. Explaining its abstention, China said it believed measures were unnecessary and Khartoum had been co-operating.
Darfur has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis
Aid agencies, meanwhile, charge that the resolution has been fatally weakened by the changes.
"The Security Council have today proved unanimous in their inaction," the representative of one major aid agency working in Darfur, which wanted to remain anonymous, told BBC News Online.
"This watered-down resolution contains no urgency and offers precious little help to the people of Darfur," he said.
"The only thing the UN Security Council has delivered is... another 30 days in which civilians will continue to live in fear of being killed or raped.
"While diplomats sit in New York and procrastinate, the people of Darfur are dying. The government of Sudan will be celebrating yet another failure to call them to account."
'Fear remains'
Meanwhile, the World Food Programme has said it will begin a series of airdrops targeting 85,000 people in isolated regions of West Darfur in three days.
Along with those who have died or have been displaced in the Darfur conflict, an estimated 2.2 million people are in urgent need of food or medical attention.
Ramiro Lopes da Silva, the WFP country director, said that insecurity, heavy rain and logistical challenges were continuing to hamper the work done by humanitarian organisations.
He warned that the climate of fear and intimidation still existed in Darfur.
UK to commit Air Drop assets???
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ANYWHERE
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is another lose lose situation
What is the African Union and fellow muslim countries doing.
From a continent the size of Africa they are planning to send 200 troops as monitors - how impressive!
The African Union objectives are:
To promote the unity and solidarity of African States;
To coordinate and intensify their cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa;
To defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence;
To eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa; and
To promote international cooperation.
This organisation basically has no interest in their fellow Africans
it is just there way of sticking two fingers up at the west.
Corruption is widespread i.e. the president of Botswana attempt to purchase a Global Express a/c which is worth more than the entire education budget for his country for a year and the President of Mozambiques attack on Tony Blair at their last conference in South africa.
This is a terrible situation and must be stopped but why us again?
What is the African Union and fellow muslim countries doing.
From a continent the size of Africa they are planning to send 200 troops as monitors - how impressive!
The African Union objectives are:
To promote the unity and solidarity of African States;
To coordinate and intensify their cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa;
To defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence;
To eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa; and
To promote international cooperation.
This organisation basically has no interest in their fellow Africans
it is just there way of sticking two fingers up at the west.
Corruption is widespread i.e. the president of Botswana attempt to purchase a Global Express a/c which is worth more than the entire education budget for his country for a year and the President of Mozambiques attack on Tony Blair at their last conference in South africa.
This is a terrible situation and must be stopped but why us again?
Guest
Posts: n/a
And why again has the UN come up so weakly against this humanitarian disaster? Is it not about time pressure was put on the UN to actually DO something instead of dilly-dally and hope for the best? I personally feel as if they ar waiting, once again, for someone else to pick this one up.
And, athough some liberals may disagree, I think it is fair to say historically, the only language these corrupt governments understand is a threatening with a bloody great big stick... threaten their rule and just watch them tow the line.
And, athough some liberals may disagree, I think it is fair to say historically, the only language these corrupt governments understand is a threatening with a bloody great big stick... threaten their rule and just watch them tow the line.
