The African Union will use the 105 armoured Grizzlies to help enforce a truce between the government-backed Arab militias and African southern rebels.

Armoured Grizzlies in Sudan within days

CBC Profile on the Sudan

Crisis Zone: Darfur, Sudan

The APCs will be of great value to the African Union soldiers, I have no doubts about that these Grizzlies will be of great use. They will provide excellent protection against small arms and most mines.

I believe the APCs being sent to Sudan have had the turrets removed, and there have been some other modifications such as new engines have been added for increase power and speed.

I am not current on the mission in Sudan however I believe that there in no other vehicle in use that could help the African Union peacekeepers.

Yet like the UN forces they are under trained and equipped.

As to the training it takes years to train military commanders, in subject like ethics, tactics, supply and logistics, communications, military intelligence, command procedures, peacekeeping and warfighting.

So many UN commanders do not have a clue about most of these topics (including some American and Canadians generals). I have found most of these leaders are their to follow the party line of their country.

We are a different military, and these are different times.

I think we have started to lose our focus and the end product is always changing, too many chiefs and not enough indians.

The AU has nearly 7,000 peacekeeping troops in the region, trying to monitor a tattered ceasefire.

The vehicles should begin arriving on Friday. The AU said it would give them more mobility to respond to incidents.

"A special court in Sudan has sentenced two government soldiers to death for torturing and killing a civilian in the war-torn Darfur region."

It was a Sudanese court.

[ 19 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

"Sudan has accused neighbouring Chad of violating its airspace and supporting rebels in its western Darfur region."

Will this lead to more conflict in Sudan's near future? It would appear the Africa Union Peacekeeping Force will have greater difficulty in securing a peaceful environment as rebel forces continue crossing into the western area of Darfur.

quote:

---

Seven thousand AU troops are deployed in Darfur but they have failed to end a conflict that has so far killed more than 100,000 people and left millions in overcrowded camps.

---

quote:

---

"The Sudanese government is blocking a U.N. force because it fears a larger, better-equipped force might hinder its abusive agenda in Darfur," Peter Takirambudde, Africa director at the New York-based watchdog [Human Rights Watch], wrote in a letter to the council.

---

The NGO community has been issuing increasingly desperate messages about Darfur, and Sudan in general, for many years. But concrete action has been pretty sparse, and as usual confused by so-called national interests.

Between 1983 and 2002, two million people died as a result of civil war in Sudan, and at least another four million were "internally displaced", many to refugee camps whose horror you cannot imagine. I couldn't imagine them before I saw one. I still have nightmares.

“At least another four million were "internally displaced", many to refugee camps whose horror you cannot imagine. I couldn't imagine them before I saw one. I still have nightmares.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Two gunmen have attacked an office of the UN refugee agency in southern Sudan.

---

The UN Mission in Sudan:

quote:

---

On a rutted track three hours northwest of Juba, far into southern Sudan's still lawless territory, Lieutenant-Commander Hugh Son sees the first group of Dinka Bor warriors. Tall and raggedly fierce, these nomadic Dinka tribesmen are well armed and unpredictable. One carries an AK-47 over his shoulder and has a long silver spear by his side, another has an AK-47 on his back and a darkened axe in his hand, the blade's steel tip sharpened and gleaming.

This patrol was always going to be risky. The Dinka Bor, long displaced by war, were shepherding an estimated 1.5 million cattle across southern Sudan on a long march home. Just the day before the patrol, the Dinka were involved in a gunfight that killed several locals. In addition, the roads are mined and the terrifying rebel group known as the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is rumoured to be operating in the area.

After almost 50 years of sporadic war and over two million killed, the fighting between the northern government and the southern rebels has mostly stopped. The peace agreement, signed in January 2005, is why Canadian troops are in Sudan now and why this story, based on a trip to Sudan in November 2005, was written.

Everyday both sides still bring out their mortars, man their guns and prepare to defend their ground. "They have this long history of war, it's what they know," says Captain Sam Perreault, an UNMO from Ottawa. "They have the weapons and they have the animosity. The only thing missing is a spark."

Son, Perreault and more than 20 other Canadian UNMOs are on the frontlines of the effort to keep that spark from reigniting southern Sudan.

Unfortunately, the most hostile group in southern Sudan, the LRA, have not agreed to put down their arms. Known locally as 'tong-tong,' the LRA is an unhappy blowback of an earlier European effort to stabilize Sudan. Their leader, a messianic savage named Joseph Kony, believes he is possessed by the spirit of an Italian missionary who once lived in the area. Renowned for their unbelievable barbarity, including machete attacks on babies, cannibalism and forcing children to kill their parents, the LRA is a result no missionary ever intended.

The UN mission in Sudan is essentially a race against encroaching chaos. In any post-conflict situation there is a window of time where hope emerges and peace has its chance. If progress is slow or uneven, hope may vanish and no Western nation wants any part of a shooting war in Sudan. This is why the UNMOs role is so crucial. Spread thinly across the entire breadth of southern Sudan, they are the unarmed and unthreatening harbingers of peace . . .

Bangladeshi Major-General Fazle Akbar would probably agree with Howard that there's hardly anything more difficult than a Sudanese problem. As the UNMIS force commander, Akbar is ultimately responsible for all UN military operations in Sudan . . .

One of the key problems was that all the equipment for the thousands of UN soldiers waiting to deploy had to be moved in overland from Kenya. But the roads are mined and a real bottleneck has developed because the LRA keeps attacking the deminers.

Indeed, there is a whole list of serious issues Akbar is responsible for but has little control over. He needs helicopters, but few are available. He needs money to finance new joint military units, but none is available. He needs to get rid of the LRA, but can't find a way. Of all these problems, however, it turns out that nothing frustrates Akbar more than the inefficiency of the UN itself.

When Capt. Sam Perreault deployed in October to Maridi, west of Juba, he and his fellow UNMOs stayed in insecure huts without force protection or nearby medical support.

As it turned out, the people in Maridi were extremely friendly to Perreault and the other UNMOs, and he never once felt like they were a threat. Mines, on the other hand did worry him; but even mines weren't as bad as the prospect of an LRA attack. "That was always in the back of my mind, the situation with the LRA, because they attacked once or twice while I was in Maridi, within 20 to 30 kilometres of there," says Perreault, who just finished law school and is on his first CF deployment. "During the day when we patrolled, I didn't think much about it. Even if in the back of my mind I'm like, is this going to be my last day on earth? At night the only time I would think about the LRA situation was when we'd shut off all the lights and go to bed and the only thing between them and us is a bamboo wall."

Words can only weakly describe the scene on the outskirts of a place like Juba. Everything is shattered and failed. There's garbage and sewage everywhere, the homes are made of mud, many are broken. The children, well into their third generation of brutalizing warfare, stare at you with a mixture of incomprehension and delight. "It's quite different from Canada," says Lt.-Col. Michael Goodspeed.

The new and official policy in Ottawa is that Canada has a responsibility to protect innocent people in danger. It is based on the principle that because we can help, we should help. Looking at the orphans, it's clear the idea is good, but in a case like Darfur, where protecting civilians could mean fighting, the consequences are significant. "On a gut feeling I have a tremendous affinity for the responsibility to protect, but I think war, as Lenin said, is a step into the darkness," says the thoughtful Goodspeed, who has published a book on modern warfare.

Sudan provokes big questions. Millions have died there already and still the violence continues. What do Canadians stand for? What are they willing to fight for? Do Canadians have a responsibility to protect little African girls from harm?

For the Canadian soldiers in Sudan, the ones who've volunteered to risk their lives, these big questions have stark, straight answers. "In this world," says Goodspeed, "in the globalized world that we're in now, you can't turn around and say 'Your end of the boat has a hole in it, what are you going to do about it?' We're in the same boat."

To the soldiers, this is a duty not totally unlike saving Europe from the Nazis or Korea from the communists. It is all about protecting the innocent from harm and freeing them from oppression, despite the risks. "To me, this is all apart of the CF mission to provide peace and security to the world," says Son. "If we don't step in, no one else will. It's like if you see someone get attacked and you do nothing about it, because you don't want to get involved, because you don't want to get hurt. Look, these people need help and we have to contribute, we can't just talk about it, we have to actually do something."

---

quote:

---

To the soldiers, this is a duty not totally unlike saving Europe from the Nazis or Korea from the communists. It is all about protecting the innocent from harm and freeing them from oppression

---

Impossible without addressing the global economic system that creates the environment for opression and violence to flourish and that is just not on the agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The effort in Darfur by peacekeepers, whom I have great respect for, is a lot like pissing on a forest fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Impossible without addressing the global economic system that creates the environment for opression and violence to flourish and that is just not on the agenda.

---

"NATO says it would support a United Nations force in Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region."

quote:

---

North Korea is nicely insulated from the global economic system. Oppression and violence have not failed to flourish. Still, you do have a point. However, the responsiblity to protect the innocent from harm and free them from oppression is a limited goal, isn't it? Doesn't it leave the field clear for further goals like freedom from hunger?

---

What does North Korea have to do with it? Whatever NK's problems are, they are not the Horn of Africa's which are environmental. Years of drought has brought famine, thirst and war. If you have ever been hungry, you would know hunger is oppression. Possibly the worst kind.

Freeing them from opression is a far less limited goal than the temporary feel good measures of food drops and peace keeping measures. Freeing them from oppression would entail resettling them where they can live, grow food, and have available fresh water and be free from violence and terror.

"At present Darfur is policed by an under-funded, poorly equipped African Union mission."

"UNHCR head in Sudan Jean-Marie Fakhouri said one of its staff members was killed last week in Yei and there had been heavy fighting in Yambio on Saturday night, which he believed was initiated by Ugandan rebels."

quote:

---

Despite $4.5bn in aid being promised to the south, only a tiny fraction of that has actually been delivered.

---

There is a well-known tendency of governments to make huge promises of aid at conferences, which are then given lots of press coverage, and then simply not come up with the money, or come up with it much too late. For some odd reason, the press does not seem to give much coverage to the broken promises.

If you let a wound fester long enough, you need surgical intervention. Better care in the beginning would avoid a lot of grief.

ETA: In the case of Sudan, there is a lot of blame to pass around, including the Sudanese government and rebel forces. In a lot of ways, the whole peace negotiating process has been a long drawn-out farce. While at this point, it is hard to see any solution which does not involve a lot more spending on peace-keeping forces, I still believe that had the international community paid more attention to the issue 20 years ago, it would have been resolved by now.

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

quote:

---

Extending Sudan mission, Security Council lays groundwork for UN Darfur force
24 March 2006 – The Security Council today decided to extend the mandate of the United Nations peacekeeping mission focussed on southern Sudan (UNMIS) until 24 September 2006, requesting that Secretary-General Kofi Annan also expedite the planning for a transformation of the African Union force in Sudan’s troubled Darfur region to a UN-led operation.

Through the unanimously adopted resolution, the Council also requested that UNMIS intensify its efforts to coordinate closely with the African force, known as AMIS, during the transitional period.

During that period, the Council asked the Secretary-General to plan ways in which UNMIS can reinforce the peace efforts in Darfur through additional assistance to AMIS in logistics, mobility, communications and other areas, and to present a range of options for a UN operation in Darfur to the Council by 24 April 2006.

As part of those options, the Council requested recommendations for dealing more effectively with the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), the Uganda-based group which the Council condemned for its attacks on civilians and other human rights abuses.

---

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: tvarga ]

Canada
MINUSTAH
Troop 6
Police 100
. . . . 106

MONUC
Military Observer 9
. . . . 9

ONUCI
Police 10
. . . . 10

UNAMA
Police 1
. . . . 1

UNAMI
Military Observer 1
. . . . 1

UNDOF
Troop 184
. . . . 184

UNFICYP
Troop 1
. . . . 1

UNMIS
Troop 7
Military Observer 25
. . . . 32

UNTSO
Military Observer 8
. . . . 8

Canada Total: 352

UN Missions overview

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

quote:

---

There are no indications that the U.S. — or any other Western country — is preparing or planning to send troops to Darfur, although there are some U.S. technical advisors and military observers already working with the AU.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tvarga:
Well, it looks like that's 7 more troops than Human Rights Watch indicate are there.

---

Sorry, UNMIS is Southern Sudan, not Darfur. It is pretty pathetic in terms of a "commitment to peacekeeping", which would appear to pretty well be a myth these days.

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rici:

Sorry, UNMIS is Southern Sudan, not Darfur. It is pretty pathetic in terms of a "commitment to peacekeeping", which would appear to pretty well be a myth these days.

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

---

The Army is bound to provide the Government with the ability to mount and sustain two concurrent overseas deployments of approximately Battalion strength (about 1000 plus personnel). We asked for (and recieved) a tactical puase to allow for some necessary transformation to occur - that pause is now over.

"A high-level meeting to speed-up the peace process for Sudan's Darfur region has ended without a breakthrough in the Nigerian capital, Abuja."

Darfur's doomed peacekeeping mission

"Created three years ago with the idea of "African solutions for African problems" at its heart, it must decide whether to handover its first major peacekeeping operation to the United Nations."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
It appears the people of Darfur will suffer for a while longer.

---

Hmmm that is a difficult question to answer. I am assuming I was the UN mission commander. Just a few points of the top of my head, in no real order.

1. I would develop and co-ordinate a very large humanitarian relief effort. I would start gathering and stock-piling numerous items and personnel such six months of food and water, medical staff and supplies, transport aircraft and helicopters, construction specials and engineers.

2. I would create a large international security forces at least 50,000 from all nations and races of the world. I would ensure that each nation properly equip and supply these forces for the mission.

3. I would create robust headquarters, with the 24 hour access to various UN and NGO headquarters (New York, Europe, Asia, and all etc.)

4. I would review and research all the lessons learned from various UN, AU and NGOs organizations that have operated in the eastern part of Africa.

5. I would ensure that the ROEs followed the Geneva conventions however would not limit the capability of the mission, and I would create a policy that would allow for detainees and create a detainee collection centre.

6. I would ensure all parties from the conflict would be involved in peace talks and that the humanitarian rights would be followed.

7. I would listen for advice from all parties.

8. I am not sure how I would deploy my forces at this time (ie. would there be a buffer zone, no-go areas, etc.)

"Heavy fighting has subsided in Chad's capital after breaking out at dawn, between government troops and rebels trying to overthrow the president."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
EriKtheHalfaRed

I have answered your last post, I would like to hear your views.

---

8. I am not sure how I would deploy my forces at this time (ie. would there be a buffer zone, no-go areas, etc.)

"The agency says attacks by militia have made large areas in the provinces of Upper Nile and Jonglei too dangerous to operate in."

"An African Union peacekeeper in Sudan's Darfur region has been killed in an ambush by unknown men.

A peacekeeping base was later attacked with rocket-propelled grenades. One peacekeeper was badly injured; five had less serious wounds."

"Some 7,000 AU troops are already in Darfur but AU peacekeeping head Said Djinnit said the numbers would be increased to 10,000"

"Gunmen in southern Sudan have attacked the outskirts of the city of Juba, killing nine people.

Residents said the gunmen belonged to the Ugandan rebel Lord's Resistance Army who have been fighting for many years in northern Uganda."

"Sudan's Darfur region has seen its bloodiest few days since the signing of a peace agreement over two months ago.

"The United Nations and African Union have condemned the Sudanese army and Janjaweed militias for attacking rebels in Darfur's Jebel Moon area."

Sudan the forgotten place of war crimes.

Tens of thousands of people, probably many more, died.

Over two million Darfurians were driven from their homes.

In the face of such misery, the world's largest humanitarian operation was hastily assembled to provide food and water.

quote:

---

What might be called the liberal position on Darfur can be stated as follows:

"The people of Darfur have suffered unspeakable violence, and America has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."

The liberal position is hardly distinguishable from

(a) the Bush administration's position on Darfur, and

(b) the Clinton administration's position on Kosovo.

In both cases the cry of genocide and "humanitarian" intervention is used to cover the USG's imperial machinations to reduce a state (respectively Sudan and Serbia) that was unreliable from the US/Israeli POV.

For Clinton, "NATO must act" -- and the situation of Kosovo got worse, but Serbia was brought to heel. For Bush, "the United Nations must act" (with NATO providing logistics and "other support") -- and the wretched situation in Darfur will probably get worse, but Sudan, an oil-producing state (much of its production goes to China) will be put under increasing pressure.

---

quote:

---

Thousands rallied on September 17 in a “Global Day for Darfur” to call attention to a catastrophe created by civil war in the western part of Sudan.

Since 2003, more than 200,000 Darfuris have died and more than 2 million have been displaced as militias backed by the Sudanese government responded to a local rebellion with murder, rape and scorched-earth policies.

But the central demand of the September 17 rallies was not a call for stepped-up aid to the victims, even though the relief supplies currently reaching them meet only two-thirds of the “minimum daily level,” according to the United Nations.

Instead, the urgent focus at the rallies was on sending 20,000 NATO/UN troops to occupy the region. “The world must act...now because time is not on our side,” former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told a crowd of 20,000 gathered in New York’s Central Park.

The plan being put forward by supporters of intervention doesn’t call for U.S. troops. But the U.S. would be deeply involved behind the scenes, providing logistics and support for the NATO/UN “peacekeepers,” just as it does now for a lightly armed African Union (AU) force of 7,000 that currently patrols the refugee camps in Darfur.

There is a heightened sense of urgency around the issue right now because the mandate for the AU troops was set to expire September 30, and Sudan’s President Umar al-Bashir still refuses to approve the entry of UN troops.

Oil-rich southern Sudan already has a UN peacekeeping force of 10,000 following a 2005 peace agreement that ended two decades of a separate conflict. Bashir’s nerve to resist further intervention has been buoyed by high oil revenues, combined with setbacks for the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East. But the AU last week defused the immediate crisis by extending its troop commitment to the end of the year.

As this new deadline approaches, activists need to rethink the call for stepped-up military intervention. No one should forget the brutal record of past U.S. interventions, ignore the strong possibility that a UN force would compound the catastrophe in Darfur, or make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. will ever put the welfare of Darfuris above its main objective in the region - muscling out potential rivals such as China in a scramble for oil and other resources.

---

quote:

---

Top UN officials say the world body must abandon efforts to pressure Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

UN Sudan envoy Jan Pronk says the existing African Union force should instead be strengthened. [...]

In an interview with the UK-based Independent newspaper, Mr Malloch Brown said UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush "need to get beyond this posturing and grandstanding".[...]

Mr Pronk has meanwhile told the Associated Press news agency he does not expect Khartoum to accept UN peacekeepers any time soon.

"The international community should instead push for the African Union's mission to be prolonged and reinforced," Mr Pronk is quoted as saying.

He said the AU force's mandate should be extended indefinitely to ensure relief continued to reach Darfur's refugees.

Mr Pronk is quoted as saying he was certain Khartoum would allow the AU force to stay on in Darfur.

---

In particular, it will not be lost on the Muslim world that the West would be intervening against a Muslim government and militia.

African Union (AU) peacekeepers are in Darfur until June 2007, after Sudan rejected plans for it to hand over to a larger, stronger UN mission.

Row over 'faltering' Sudan peace

"Five African Union peacekeepers have been killed in an attack in Sudan's western Darfur region, officials say.

Mahmood Mamdani neatly bursts the bubbles of the George Clooneys, Mia Farrows and others who hysterically advocate "humanitarian intervention":

quote:

---

What the humanitarian intervention lobby fails to see is that the US did intervene in Rwanda, through a proxy. That proxy was the RPF, backed up by entire units from the Uganda Army. The green light was given to the RPF, whose commanding officer, Paul Kagame, had recently returned from training in the US, just as it was lately given to the Ethiopian army in Somalia. Instead of using its resources and influence to bring about a political solution to the civil war, and then strengthen it, the US signalled to one of the parties that it could pursue victory with impunity. This unilateralism was part of what led to the disaster, and that is the real lesson of Rwanda. Applied to Darfur and Sudan, it is sobering. ... Nurturing hopes of an external military intervention among those in the insurgency who aspire to victory and reinforcing the fears of those in the counter-insurgency who see it as a prelude to defeat are precisely the ways to ensure that it becomes a Rwanda.

---

Julie flint, co-author with Alex DeWaal of an important book on the Darfur war:

quote:

---

The only possible solution lies in going back to the drawing board and seeking a political settlement that involves all those who are a party to the conflict - inside and outside Sudan. There are no shortcuts... All the key elements are moving in the wrong direction today. The international players made mistakes, bad mistakes...

---

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: muggles ]

Not quite true. The Fur, Massalit and Zhagawa (among others) speak entirely different languages as WEll as Some Arabic, some do in fact profess different religions and most see themselves as distinct peoples and cultures, as do their Arabicised pastoral cousins. The fact that the picture is somewhat muddled by some intermarriage and conflicting rivalries and claims doesn't change the long and unbroken hostility of the Sudanese government against the aboriginal inhabitants of the region, nor their own obvious desire to monopolize the nation's natural wealth for themselves.

" The only possible solution lies in going back to the drawing board and seeking a political settlement that involves all those who are a party to the conflict - inside and outside Sudan. There are no shortcuts... All the key elements are moving in the wrong direction today. The international players made mistakes, bad mistakes..."

quote:

---

The Fur, Massalit and Zhagawa (among others) speak entirely different languages as WEll as Some Arabic, some do in fact profess different religions and most see themselves as distinct peoples and cultures, as do their Arabicised pastoral cousins.

---

quote:

---

The fact that the picture is somewhat muddled ... doesn't change the long and unbroken hostility of the Sudanese government against the aboriginal inhabitants of the region

---

quote:

---

Very nice, but the author repeats the common mistake of insisting on ideal long term solutions for an immediate humanitarian disaster.

---

"quote: The fact that the picture is somewhat muddled ... doesn't change the long and unbroken hostility of the Sudanese government against the aboriginal inhabitants of the region

This I think distorts things. The Arab people of Darfur have been there for 500 years - they came from the north (not Khartoum) and their presence pre-dates the Fur Sultanate, which was in fact a bilingual kingdom (Arabic and Fur).

Maybe a slight over-simplification on my part there, Bedouin and Arab traders have been moving into Sudan for over a thousand years actually, spreading their language and culture outward. However, the indigenous Sudanic peoples have been there for at least ten thousand years before, pretty much forever most probably, with the Nubians for one having onetime ties to the ancient kingdoms of Egypt, Kush and Meroe. The slave trade of once non-Islamic peoples (some Christian, some traditional, probably some Islamic too) to Arabia, MiddleEast and Americas, have roots that go back well before Western Colonialism became more directly involved, persisting to today. Wars have been fought all around in between more peaceful periods, and smaller groups reduced to marginilized remnants.

So there must be Some differences seen among the various groups for some time past, even if aggravated by more recent events and misfortunes. (partly by recent wars prosecuted by the central Sudanese government if we're to be entirely accurate here, their participation here may be more direct than admitted) Many if not most of the black Sudanese Arabs themselves would be assimilated descendents of those who faced a choice of converting or remaining slaves, but now seeing themselves as something other than the rest. I think it's stetching it a bit in the other direction to speak of them like equal partnerships among all parties, even if less openly hostile.

"And the Arab identity, as is quite typical in Africa, is a very fluid one: tribes who have taken up herding, an "Arab" vocation, have learned the Arabic language and taken on cultural attributes of Arabs, and vice versa for Arabs who become farmers."

Yes, from everything I've read African states have traditionally been built around complex multi-ethnic trading relationships and urban centres, with identities slowly shifting between one group and another, perhaps moreso than most other areas. Onetime the same ones now called "Janjaweed" had long standing agreements with their farming neighbours where they could use the surrounding pasture land to graze their herds in return for them taking their produce to market. THat was first upset by the drying climate making decent land more scarce. I don't know if that relationship could be reestablished after this nightmare but it might oneday be possible again on a smaller more carefully guarded scale.

That at best is a long term hope though, involving repatration of dispossessed (two and half million now actually, over half the original inhabitents, nother mistake I made) and in some cases, yes, removal of invading occupants. Good luck to everyone sorting it all then, if this carries through to its likely conclusion. What to do otherwise is a good question if neither of the main combatents are willing to stop. but the "Janjaweed" and central government have more they could give now and less at stake.

[ 07 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]