[Peace-discuss] Re: hostility towards activists

[Scott Edwards]

Randall:

What you identify as what the US efforts should be is, in fact, what they 
should be. The original push for a UN force was a function of the weaknesses 
of the AMIS force. A UN force would've been better equipped, *less* 
politically involved than Sudan's neighbors, and personnel better trained. 
But that possibility has passed, and where you think we should be is where I 
think most of the Darfur activists think we are.

I certainly never advocated an armed invasion of Sudan by the UN, though I 
did raise the ethical questions involved for discussion's sake. No one 
seriously involved in advocacy and policy making on Darfur ever advocated 
it. And I’m sorry, but Kristoff isn’t involved in advocacy or policy making 
on Darfur. He’s a pundit.

So thats exactly what these kids are doing...pushing for "massive" funding 
of the peace process and AMIS and humanitarian aid (the Save Darfur 
coalition’s most recent action was to secure some $60m for AMIS in the 
upcoming appropriations bills). But the general sentiment being bounced 
around on this list is that these dedicated activists are cogs in a 
conspiratorial machine designed to deflect attention from US crimes in Iraq 
and elsewhere. Which is crap, of the highest order of magnitude.

And given that the percentage of people in this country who actually stand 
up for anything is so miserably low I find it at best obnoxious that anyone 
would impugn them because of quibbles in the rank ordering of the moral 
outrages to be addressed.

I really didn’t mean to start a thing here. I only responded to Carl’s post 
to point out that the editorial was irrelevant because it was based old 
information, and to maybe point out a perspective that there is a whole lot 
of injustice to be addressed in a good number of places, and maybe we don’t 
need to pit causes against each other in a self-defeating way. Or whatever.

regards,
se

ps--I don't pay federal taxes. Shelter work pays squat.




---Original Message Below----


Scott, the problem with this is that you equate the moral urgency of 
mitigating
the atrocities in Darfur (which we did not cause and in which we do not 
actively
participate) and the atrocities in Palestine and Iraq, for which we are 
either
an intimate participant (Israel) or the singular cause (Iraq).

Tom speaks of things "being carried out in your name" - what that means is
you're paying for it. We all are. You and I, through federal taxes are 
directly
paying for and thus participating in the atrocities in Palestine and Iraq to 
the
tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars every year from each of us. That's 
what
makes it a greater moral urgency than Darfur. That's not to say we should 
ignore
Darfur, but neither should we allow the U.S. to take advantage of the 
situation
in Darfur to establish our own military (and thus political) presence and
influence (directly with U.S. military personnel on the ground or through
U.S.-dominated organizations), feigning altruistic intentions in the way we 
have
done many times throughout history. With history as our guide, in fact, I 
think
we can safely conclude that allowing this to happen will only lead to yet
another situation in which we are paying for and participating in the U.S.
victimization of people in yet another part of the world, this time in 
Sudan.

It seems to me that U.S. efforts should focus on providing massive financial 
and
political support for internationally-coordinated peace negotiations,
humanitarian aid, and regional peacekeeping/monitoring forces such as the
African Union.

And so I would ask Scott - why is that not a better solution? Saying it's 
not
"politically feasible" or words to that effect wouldn't tell us anything 
new, so
please set aside the argument that the U.S. and our allies would oppose this
approach and so it could never happen - in fact, presume for the moment they
wouldn't oppose it. Why would this then not be a better solution?

Thanks
R

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. 
http://ideas.live.com