Getting the facts on Darfur right

An e-mail sent to Doug Saunders, the Globe and Mail's main European correspondent:

I think you may have committed a bit of a clanger. You write that France "is about to send thousands more [troops] into Darfur and Chad." While the French will indeed be the largest contingent in the EU force that is supposed to deploy any day to Chad, as far as I know there are no plans for a sizeable French deployment to Darfur. Indeed the Sudanese government has made it clear that it wants no significant contingents of non-African--especially Western--troops as part of the hybrid UN/AU force for Darfur.

The reason I bother to write is simply because such inaccurate information may only encourage the large number of poorly informed Canadians who keep saying we should get out of Afghanistan and somehow use our soldiers in Darfur.

Please note this letter sent to the Globe Feb. 15 and so far not published:

'Daniel K. McLeod, in his letter published February 15, writes with reference to Darfur that "It seems like spending lots of money on war in Afghanistan is more important to Stephen Harper and Mr. Burney than saving lives in Africa ."

I wonder how Mr. McLeod proposes that Canada save lives in Darfur. The Sudanese government has made it clear that it does not want any substantial units of Western troops as part of the UN/African Union mission for Darfur that has just been formed. Does Mr. McLeod advocate that the Canadian Forces invade Sudan against the opposition of Khartoum and on our own (no other country would be likely to help us)? Does he believe we should take such action without authorization by the UN Security Council--authorization that our troops in Afghanistan actually have?

Sounds a lot like war with Sudan to me.

Reference:
http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL14824859.html'

"Accuracy 101" appears not to be a required course for the Globe's reporters. So much for "Canada's National Newspaper".

Mark C.

Posted by markc at February 17, 2008 11:30 AM