Austin Bay Blog

This week’s column mentions the looming US invasion of Sudan’s Darfur region.

Reuters brings together several memes in this report.”

Shouting “Down, Down USA,” thousands of Sudanese protested in Khartoum on Wednesday against any deployment of U.N. troops to the western Darfur region.

“Get out all foreigners, we don’t want you here,” shouted 21-year-old student Zeinab Kheir el-Sir.

“Darfur will be the grave of the conquerors,” said banners carried by the demonstrators.

African foreign ministers are due to decide on Friday whether to ask the United Nations to take over control of their 7,000-strong mission currently monitoring a shaky cease-fire in Darfur. The AU lacks both funds and equipment.

Ahead of their meeting, senior western officials held talks in Brussels with Sudanese leaders aiming to persuade them to agree to the deployment of a robust U.N. mission in Darfur.

Another key graf:

The United Nations is currently deploying about 10,000 troops to Sudan’s south to oversee a separate peace deal signed last year to end more than two decades of civil war there.

But the government and opposition parties have all said they do not want this U.N. force to be extended to Darfur as well.

“In the south they are there to help, but in Darfur this will just be a front for Israel and America to come in to get our oil,” said demonstrator Amal Jaafar.

Sudan produces roughly 330,000 barrels per day of crude, mostly from fields in the south.

U.N. sources say any U.N. force in Sudan’s west is likely to keep the same AU forces on the ground, but change the command over to a U.N. peacekeeping mission.

In Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana met Sudanese Vice-President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha to step up pressure on Sudan to accept U.N. peacekeepers.

“Taha is a key player in the Sudanese government … We hope he hears the message,” an EU official said

“The UN invasion of Sudan” — that’s what replacing the African Union peacekeepers with UN troops (and NATO-supplied troops) will amount to. Why? The Sudan government objects to the change, for many reasons. One reason: the pecekeepers would mo e from monitoring to peace enforcement. NATO troops would serve in strike and rapid reaction units– meaning the militias of all stripes would be out-classed and out-gunned. NATO would provide air strike and air lift support (so far the UN has asked for air lift, but made the request in terms of “air support”). NATO would provide maintenance assistance.

I wonder if critics of the US will appreciate the abundant ironies. Here’s a good one: Al Qaeda-type terrirosts have threatened UN diplomats. I wrote this up for StrategyPage a few days ago. The sources were UN statements, an NGO site, and a Reuters report (which repeated some of Pronk’s UN statement). :

… Jan Pronk, the chief UN representative in Sudan, terrorists (possibly aligned with Al Qaeda) have said that they will attack him and any non-African peacekeeping troops in Sudan. Pronk said that intelligence information had said terrorists present in Sudan would target UN peacekeepers.The Sudan government has rejected UN appeals to increase troops in Sudan’s western Darfur region and move control of the peacekeeping operation from the African Union (AU) to the United Nations.The AU has 7000 troops in the Darfur region. The UN plan calls for at least 20000 troops. On February 25 the Sudan government said that international troops would be “at risk” if they deployed to Sudan.

Anti-western, anti-modern, pro-genocide — hello Salafist/Al Qaeda terrorists.

This BBC link is useful. And here’s the link to StrategyPage’s latest.

UPDATE: Why haven’t we heard about these demonstrations in Sudan’s “Arab street?” The best answers to this question (submitted through the Creators Syndicate email box or on comments) will be highlighted in a post later this week.

Comments will not be moderated until late this evening, so don’t expect comments to appear until midnight. Please observe the comment rules.

..