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

[Scott Edwards]

Ricky:

Hi. You wrote

>But I think we have reason to be skeptical.  Again, I
>think it's clear that horrible crimes are being
>committed there, but why are we focussed on these and
>not others?

I'm not clear. Skeptical of what? I'm also not clear who you mean by "we". 
The US? The advocacy community? If the latter, of course it is not the case 
that we are focusing on Darfur exclusively. In fact, within amnesty, the DR 
Congo country action program is actually the highest level priority we've 
got. Higher than Sudan. If "we" refers to the US, then yes, there are 
atrocities being committed in places other than Sudan that aren't getting 
due attention. For the exact reasons I mentioned reacting to Carl's question 
(rhetorical as it was).

In working on Darfur since the beginning, I've watched the groundswell 
build. I participated in endless strategy meetings with people across the 
country who wanted to compel their government to actually do something just 
in their name. State department meetings, coalition building, literally 
*millions* of letters to Rice and Bush.

oh--just got word the SC passed a ch6+ resolution...

The endless problem with Congo is that there has not been any clear 
solution. We DO have a UN force in Congo. The problem with Congo is that it 
is a weak state with a number of international actors involved with the 
fighting. DR Congo is a priority for a number of thematic programs in 
Amnesty, including the Stop Violence Against Women Campaign, Arms Control, 
Rights of the Child, Econ., Social, and Cultural rights, among others. There 
are countless people who go to work everyday and work exclusively on trying 
to bring peace, stability, justice, and empowerment to the people of Congo. 
And there have been successes (though I find unless the administration is 
involved, a lot of people tend not to notice).

I don't know of anyone remotely familiar with the Darfur conflict that 
incorrectly believes this is a Christian/Muslim conflict. Of course, the 
actors are all Muslim. I spend time in the grass field, and you don’t give 
these activists due credit. Incredibly smart and well-informed about the 
situation. People who were compelled by conscience to respond to what they 
were told was genocide.

I've been sort of up front in the Darfur push since the beginning. I'm not 
claiming credit, but I do claim witness to the formation of the "Darfur 
movement" over the past couple years in the US. Nobody is being played. It 
took tireless effort to get to this point. Between 2002-04, the admin. was 
finally cozying up to Khartoum, was getting War on Terror cooperation, and 
Sudan was on its way off of the state sponsor list.

Here's my quibble, Ricky. Were it not for the non-stop efforts of a lot of 
people who actually forced the administration to at least look like it was 
revolted, I suspect some people would be lamenting about how the 
administration, because of greed for oil or neocon goblins in the closets at 
state, was chumming up with the genocidal government in Khartoum. And they 
would be right to say so.

But I get the feeling that you're claiming that is also why the 
administration *isn't* chumming up to Khartoum.

Gotta respond to the resolution...

best,
scott


>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Bushwar in Africa (C. G. Estabrook)
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>I don't know, Scott.  When I read the cover story on
>Darfur in Amnesty International's magazine, for
>example, it's clear to me that the situation is dire
>and the people there are in need of help, but I also
>have to recall how US and Kuwaiti officials played
>Amnesty and others like a fiddle in the run-up to the
>First Gulf War.  In fact, probably the most memorable
>image from that period is the televised testimony of a
>young woman (who at the time seemed to have no reason
>to lie) on Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of
>incubators, which turned out to be a lie fabricated by
>PR mercenaries and government officials with an
>agenda.  We already knew Saddam was a thug -- we'd
>been saying so for years while the US was supporting
>him -- so how hard was it to turn our own work against
>us, for war?  Not hard, as it turned out.
>
>Do I have evidence that this is going on now?  No.
>But I think we have reason to be skeptical.  Again, I
>think it's clear that horrible crimes are being
>committed there, but why are we focussed on these and
>not others?
>
>Carl's comparison to the Congo Wars is hard to
>dismiss.  Even not counting the Rwandan genocide at
>the beginning, these wars have cost millions of lives
>- compared to thousands in Darfur - the  most killed
>in a conflict, I believe, since World War II (The
>Democratic Republic of Congo is about as big as
>Western Europe, and the Second Congo War involved at
>least nine surrounding countries).  It has been going
>on for 10 years (12 if you count the Rwandan
>massacres).  None of it should be happening, I think
>we all agree, and even one life is important.  But I'm
>afraid that if activist pressure is the difference,
>then we are left with a harder - potentially more
>disturbing - question: why are activists so interested
>in Darfur, and not the Congo region?
>
>I'll go out on a limb and suggest a few possibilities,
>without trying to be definitive, because I believe
>it's an important discussion.  It's really too hard to
>know for sure until after the fact (as in the First
>Gulf War -- or, for most people in the US I think,
>Afghanistan), but some patterns, as I said, are enough
>to make me skeptical.
>
>First, to state the obvious, most Americans, even
>activists, don't know much about the Congo, but we are
>hearing more and more about Darfur and the horrors
>there.  Why?  Because the people we listen to tell us
>about Darfur and not Congo.  The Amnesty magazine I
>cited earlier does not even mention the Congo, though
>there are some very good articles - on US kidnapping
>and torture in the "war on Terror" for example, and
>earlier issues may have mentioned the Congo.  I don't
>know.
>
>But the Congo conflict also has gang rapes, mass
>murder, even genocide (not just Rwanda - there are
>Hutu and Tutsi in the the Dem Rep of Congo, Burundi
>and elsewhere), and other horrible things.  Only the
>Congo the conflict is different - it involves mineral
>resources valuable to the high-tech economy - and none
>of the participants is on the US hitlist, at least not
>the short one.
>
>Plus, in Darfur the national context is a war between
>mostly Muslims in the North and mostly Christians in
>the South.  Easy sell to Americans.  And it appears
>*to us* as racial - meaning that the Congo Wars do
>not, as almost all Americans I'd wager can't tell one
>ethnic group from another in that region.  So,
>"Islamophobic" Christians and anti-racist liberals and
>leftists (perhaps uncomfortable being allied with
>Muslims) - does that make a tempting enough target?
>
>None of us likes to think we are being played, but
>this does suggest the distinct possibility that public
>opinion is being "managed" on this, again as in the
>First Gulf War, and as in Kosovo and elsewhere, as
>part of the (relatively) new "humanitarian war"
>scenario.
>
>Again, I can't prove it, may never, but it's worth
>considering, I think.
>
>Ricky
>
>--- Scott Edwards <scottisimo at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > >      ###
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss