Nightmare in Congo: More Vicious than Rape

What do you expect the UN to do? The security council can't do anything without countries like the USA to send troops. I'm sure Kofi Annan has a notepad beside his desk with "take care of unthinkable horror" down near the bottom.

Getting the UN to do anything is like pulling teeth.

It would end up just like Iraq:

No backing from the UN.
An ultimatum.
A short war.
Years of guerrilla fighting in an area with which we're unfamiliar.
Not much would change.

Getting involved in politics and conflict hasn't really been all that successful the last few decades....and besides, I'm afraid we'd just end up getting a bunch of these women killed.

I think what really needs to happen is the sponsorship of several large well armed outposts where women could go for refuge, treatment and possible relocation.

Of course, I'm saying this without knowing precisely what level of armed resistance we'd be up against.

Defending the fort and protecting citizenry against angry natives is what the US did for a very long time. Throw in forward medical units and a temporary hospital in a central location well beyond attack range and you're in business.

An undertaking of this size would require massive manpower and countless millions of dollars.

Doctors and well trained mercenaries/pilots are some of the most expensive payroll payouts there are. Medical equipment, air transport and heavy arms aren't cheap. You'd probably need an organization the size of the Peace Corps, a well armed and mobile military force large enough to defend a small nation.......and Bill Gates. This is why private, "missionary' style outreach programs are often quite modest in scope and size. This is also why governments of fairly large and wealthy nations usually handle this type of crisis and why things like this end up being so damned political.

The first step would probably be a research phase to find out what the program would be up against in terms of armed resistance versus the number of patients these outposts would be treating.

Fighting off/avoiding petty thugs armed with light firepower is a bit easier and cheaper than fighting off modestly trained military types armed with rockets and mortars. Especially if they are prone to attacking medical posts and transport.

You'd probably need an organization the size of the Peace Corps, a well armed and mobile military force large enough to defend a small nation.......and Bill Gates.

Or a UN organization who actually knew their asses from their elbows.....to continue my thoughts.

What the world needs is a politically neutral, civilian sponsored and run Civilian Aid Foundation whose sole purpose is sheltering, treating and defending civilians in the midst of dire crisis.

Kinda like the Red Cross with big fecking guns and plenty of mean individuals who know how to use them if forced by unwarranted aggression.

"There is another alternative: corporate sponsors"

Corporations are usually more corrupt and counterproductive than govt. agencies.

Their money still spends.

Once they give it away to charity for tax write offs, they have little say in how it is used.

There is a LOT of thinking that still needs to be done.

General areas that need extra consideration are establishing rules of engagement and maintaining a neutral reputation.

The well armed, defensive nature of this endeavor is what sets it apart from other charities and medical aid organizations. These differences should be the primary concern. It could be very easy for rogue militias and governments to make accusations of espionage and meddling if procedures aren't set up properly.

There should also be concerns over exactly who is qualified to receive care and shelter. Outlaws and terrorists are civilians too. Letting the wrong people enter an outpost could be devastating.

It's very late here. I'll sleep on it and continue to mull things over.

Well, it's obvious I"ve been a bit too busy to spend much time on this, Nikita.

I'd like to see us take this further than just a bit of online daydreaming about helping people.

I'm not a connections or money guy. I'm just an artsy, social analyst of sorts. Envisioning a distinct structure for the setup of this type of endeavor is slightly outside of my expertise.

Just a couple of thoughts while toying with the whole idea.

Administration must be entirely civilian and completely politically neutral.
Medical and defense must be kept separate in every way. No doctors with guns or soldiers in medical transport vehicles.
Non military and non medical support personnel would make up a forth group. Construction, maintenance, food prep, supply......etc.
Multinational and multicultural ties would add legitimacy to the project.
Contributions need guidelines. NO influence in exchange for cash or equipment.

I'm also toying with the idea of training civilian refugees to take over certain tasks over time. If done properly, certain outposts could eventually be left behind as fully functioning towns inhabited by natives with skills and a means to protect themselves. Easier said than done. Kick starting an economy could be a biatch.

Eh, might as well shoot for the moon while envisioning this sort of project.

..sure, this is but a small synopsis of his efforts..but even here is a reoccurring problem that we face in the ME,and imhho we will have to confront sooner rather than later.

July 1, 2004--sudanreeves--

Powell's long-awaited testimony provoked a range of reactions.

In Nigeria, which is hosting on-again, off-again peace talks between the Sudanese government and two African rebel groups from Darfur, Khartoum's deputy foreign minister, Najeeb al-Khair Abel-Wahab, rejected the finding of "genocide" and suggested that Powell's words might inflame the situation in the region.
"We don't think this kind of attitude can help the situation in Darfur," he told reporters. "We expect the international community to assist the process that is taking place in Abuja [Nigeria], and not put oil on the fire."

What accounts for US willingness to support such an exceedingly weak resolution? Much of the answer apparently lies in the US understanding that no stronger resolution would have a chance in the Security Council. Indeed, it is reliably reported that Permanent Member China (with veto power) is unhappy with any resolution that is specific to Darfur. Russia is similarly disposed, as are Algeria and Pakistan. No one following the internal deliberations at the Security Council feels that any form of humanitarian intervention will be agreed to by China---certainly not for the foreseeable future.

Thursday, September 9, 2004

CNN

"Sudan is a contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is obliged under the convention to prevent and punish acts of genocide," Powell said.

At this time, he said, "it appears Sudan has failed to do so."

"Today we are calling on the United Nations to initiate a full investigation" into genocide, Powell said.

He said he hopes that the next Security Council resolution into Sudan requests an investigation into all violations of human rights law in the country.

"The evidence leads us to the conclusion that genocide has occurred and may still be occurring in Darfur."

September 10, 2004
Powell Declares Darfur Situation 'Genocide'

antiwar

"We believe in order to confirm the true nature, scope and totality of the crimes our evidence reveals, a full-blown and unfettered investigation needs to occur,"