This is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: South Sudan Edition

 

“South Sudan’s security forces are shooting, torturing and raping civilians in the country’s east, rights group Amnesty International said on Wednesday, urging the government and United Nations to do more to stop the abuses.” reuters‘ lede fails to mention the key fact about the unconscionable suffering inflicted by these Owellian-named “security forces.” But the news service does get there eventually: “Soldiers and police have been fanning out across Jonglei – home to a huge, largely unexplored oil field – to try and collect thousands of weapons left over from decades of civil war that are now fuelling tribal clashes and a growing rebellion.” Kudos to Amnesty International for flagging the firearms-related fatalities. Brickbats for their “solution” . . .

“Far from bringing security to the region, the SPLA and the police auxiliary forces have committed shocking human rights violations and the authorities are doing very little to stop the abuse,” Amnesty International’s Africa Director, Audrey Gaughran, said in the statement.

The group said the United Nations mission in the country should do more to protect civilians and “(deploy) peacekeepers in areas where there is significant potential for violations by the SPLA”.

Right. ‘Cause the answer to unbridled brutality is foreign intervention, rather than say, armed self-defense. White man’s burden much?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

20 Responses to This is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: South Sudan Edition

  1. avatarjwm says:

    The U.N. about as much use in the real world as tits on a boar hog.

  2. avatarRalph says:

    I think that sending in UN forces is a great idea — as long as there’s not a single American soldier among them. If the boys and girls in blue helmets want to die, let them.

    • avatarGS650G says:

      Without the Americans the UN doesn’t have quite the teeth it needs. And the French seem to have issues with the teenage girls which causes more problems. The Germans are pretty rich right now, let’s see what happens when German troops land in Africa again.

  3. avatarSPEMack says:

    I’m not much for the blue beret and helmet crowd, but I bet a couple of Battalions of Belgium paratroopers would clean these guys out right quick. (Props to anyone who catches the literary/historical reference)

    That being said, after the Belgian blue brain bucket boys do there job, maybe an AL ANG SF group could stay behind and train a legitimate police force and encourag a civilian militia.

  4. avatarGS650G says:

    Nothing’s possible while the CIC is running for re election. Priorities you know.

  5. avatarDracon1201 says:

    I agree, the UN would just be a police force after the initial campaign, then the people of the countries that have troops involved would complain loudly enough. The troops would be pulled, leaving a police and military force, who would then be re corrupted by the lucrative criminal underworld, and proceed to once more ethnically cleanse the populace right off the planet.
    It’s sad, but I don’t think this can be stopped until both sides say enough is enough. No policing can stop it.

  6. avatarRKflorida says:

    I agree Robert, every time I read about the violence in Sudan or the Boko Harem murders in Mubi town, Adamawa State (yesterday) or some other horrific African civilian massacre I think of how different it would be if the population was armed.

  7. avatarmat says:

    ‘Cause the answer to unbridled brutality is foreign intervention, rather than say, armed self-defense

    They can arm themselves with the same machettes they are being attacked with.

  8. avatarsmwlce says:

    the UN. because they stopped the srebrenica massacre too and protected those civilians very well. *facepalm

    The west has no interest in solving that issue. the more divided that country is, the easier its oil is to exploit. Pretty easy, rudimentary stuff. if we gave a shit, there would be no conflict within the Sudans.

  9. avatarDrama says:

    There’s no point sending in anyone if they have no plan to do anything.

    Talking about intervention and actually having plans on doing something are completely different.

    Why does amnesty international even bother asking anyone do to anything, when whoever does will then have to answer to amnesty international for being too aggressive and rough despite having their hands tied behind their back with ROE.

    Their all fur coat and no trousers.

  10. avatarIdahoPete says:

    I know! I know! The UN CAN stop the violence!!! All they need to do is pass a UN Security Council Resolution deploring the violence and calling for all parties to sit down to multi-lateral TALKS!!!! That has been their solution to every conflict since the Korean War, and I am sure it will work in Africa!

    “Alllll weeee are sayyy-ing, is give peeeece a chanccccce.” Ommmmmmmmmmmmm

  11. avatarLuis says:

    I find South Sudan’s situation rather amusing, in a bizarre way. Wasn’t it over a year ago, that the world hailed the creation of South Sudan as the answer to the problems of the people in that region? For decades, we were told, the people of southern Sudan were being repressed by the regime in Khartoum, and an independent state was the ONLY SOLUTION.

    Well, South Sudan has been independent for little more than a year now, and guess what? The South Sudan “security forces” are raping, torturing and murdering their own subjects. They’re no different from the boys in Khartoum.

    South Sudan will soon go the way of South Vietnam and South Yemen.

    “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”…

    —- The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.