[Peace-discuss] RE: Bushwar in Africa (C. G. Estabrook)

[Scott Edwards]

Carl asks:
>Why are the USUK forces at the UN, led by the ridiculous John Bolton, so 
>concerned about Darfur?

Because Carl, whatever one may think is going on in Sudan, the 
administration (facing pressure from the Cong. Black Caucus) identified the 
atrocities in Darfur as genocide. And when that happed, it made it a lot 
easier for human rights advocates to build the grassroots base necessary to 
compel this administration to actually *do* something about it. Thus the 
disparity between USG action on DR Congo relative to Darfur. But it wasn't 
easy. This resolution should have been before the council over a year ago. 
Why are they so concerned about Darfur?

Because they have to be.

Because we demand it.

Based on the history of the administration's Darfur policy, I am skeptical 
to what lengths it will go to secure this resolution, and much more 
importantly, to secure an actual operational transfer from the AU to the UN. 
There is still opportunity for the US to use it's power in a way that I 
think nearly all progressive-minded individuals would find appropriate and 
just. If this doesn't happen, we are days, not weeks, away from an 
unmitigated horror even worse than has already occured.




>From: peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
>Reply-To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 75
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:00:56 -0500 (CDT)
>
>Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to
>	peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Bushwar in Africa (C. G. Estabrook)
>    2. Bushwar in Africa (C. G. Estabrook)
>    3. Fw: [BNCPJ] Barbara Ehrenreich at IWU Sept 6 (Randall Cotton)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:09:14 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bushwar in Africa
>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Message-ID: <44F4F34A.6030801 at uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>[There is more (or less) to the following report than meets the eye
>(although I love the first reporter's name).  Why are the USUK forces at
>the UN, led by the ridiculous John Bolton, so concerned about Darfur?
>Does the specter of attacked and brutalized people move them to action?
>   It didn't seem to in Lebanon, where they perpetrated the attacks and
>brutalization.  And the far worse situation in the Congo seems not to
>have come to their notice.  Why then Darfur?  The answer is clear from a
>decade of Neocon writing, summed up by "counterterrorism expert" Richard
>Clarke in his 2003 book: "As I went back through the Pentagon in
>November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a
>chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But
>there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign
>plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with
>Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”  --CGE]
>
>      U.S., Britain seek vote on UN troops for Darfur
>      Aug 29, 4:47 PM (ET)
>      By Opheera McDoom and Irwin Arieff
>
>KHARTOUM/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain plan
>to push for a vote on a U.N. resolution sending peacekeeping troops to
>Darfur, despite a fresh rejection by Sudan on Tuesday of any deployment
>of U.N. troops there.
>
>The U.S. and British sponsored resolution would authorize the deployment
>of 20,000 U.N. troops and police in Darfur to take over from some 7,000
>African Union troops, who have been unable to end bloodshed in the
>western Sudanese region.
>
>Though the resolution, likely to be put to a vote on Thursday, would
>state that Sudan would need to agree to the deployment, it was expected
>to add pressure on Khartoum to drop its opposition to U.N. peacekeeping
>troops.
>
>"Our judgment here is that we think we've found a formulation that would
>win acceptance on the (Security) Council," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton
>told reporters at the United Nations.
>
>U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer
>also made a fresh plea on Tuesday to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir
>to agree to U.N. troops, though her meeting with him in Khartoum ended
>without any sign of progress.
>
>In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters
>Frazer had delivered a message from President George W. Bush that Sudan
>needed to accept a U.N. force in Darfur.
>
>"She made a very clear case of what U.S. policy is and he certainly
>listened to what she had to say," he said.
>
>Frazer canceled all meetings with the media, which one Sudanese official
>said was because she had "nothing new to report." She had waited nearly
>two days to meet Bashir.
>
>Bashir on Tuesday reiterated his opposition to the deployment of U.N.
>troops, instead praising the AU troops in Darfur in a speech. "We are
>not calling for confrontation or war but we are calling for peace and
>stability," he said.
>
>His comments followed a decision by Sudan to boycott U.N. Security
>Council talks on Monday on Darfur, where tens of thousands of people
>have been killed and 2.5 million forced from their homes since a revolt
>began in early 2003.
>
>U.N. TROOPS IN SOUTH
>
>Sudan has likened the deployment of U.N. troops in Darfur to a Western
>invasion that it says would attract militants and cause an Iraq-style
>quagmire.
>
>But analysts say Khartoum objects because it fears U.N. troops would
>arrest any officials or militia leaders likely to be indicted for war
>crimes by the International Criminal Court.
>
>Sudan has however already agreed to the deployment of U.N. troops in
>southern Sudan monitoring a separate peace deal there, raising hopes
>that it might eventually drop its opposition to U.N. troops in the west
>of the country.
>
>Security Council members China and Russia have traditionally resisted
>any talk of imposing sanctions on Khartoum to force it to accept U.N.
>troops.
>
>Casey said Bashir would send an envoy to Washington to reply directly to
>Bush's message, which according to one U.S. official had included
>incentives if Sudan accepted a U.N. force.
>
>Casey declined to comment on the contents of the message.
>
>Despite a peace deal signed by one of three rebel negotiating factions
>in May, violence has increased in Darfur.
>
>U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland warned the Security
>Council on Monday of the risk of fresh violence in Darfur. "We may well
>be on the brink of a return to all-out war," Egeland said, according to
>a text of his remarks.
>
>      ###
>