[Peace-discuss] Re: hostility towards activists

[C. G. Estabrook]

Washington clearly doesn't think the "possibility [of a UN force in 
Sudan] has passed."  And if "no one seriously involved in ... policy 
making on Darfur ever advocated ... an armed invasion of Sudan by the 
UN," then you must consider the US government not "seriously involved in 
... policy making on Darfur."

Good-hearted liberals and those Santayananly unable to learn from 
history (specifically the Kosovo war -- US policy is so consistent as to 
be repetitious) continue to give cover to US imperial policy on Africa 
(e.g., campus die-ins).

Less innocent are those who understand the generally unadvertised policy 
quite well and support it, notably the embattled Israeli lobby.  The 
"Save Darfur" coalition, that came to public attention with a rally in 
Washington last spring featuring George Clooney and Elie Wiesel, "was 
actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish 
community," according to the Jerusalem Post.

The USG and the lobby have long found the Muslim government of Sudan a 
convenient hate-object.  (Few Americans remember that the Clinton 
administration rocketed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan: the result of 
the loss of medicines has been estimated to include thousands of deaths 
-- the US blocked a UN attempt to investigate the results.)  Like those 
other objects of US attack, Serbia and Somalia, Sudan is on the ring 
around the cynosure of US foreign policy, Mideast energy resources. 
Two-thirds of its oil goes to China, at a time the US is desperately 
afraid of the emergence of an independent Asian power grid (the source 
of the Iran "crisis" and the US nuclear deal with India).  And the 
atrocities that have resulted from the rebel uprising in Darfur can be 
presented as an occasion for the USG's propagandistic "global war on 
terrorism."

Now the well-known Washingtonian poodle, PM Blair of the UK -- 
practically the only foreign leader supporting George Bush's carnage in 
Iraq -- is calling for "tougher action" against Sudan.  In a visit to 
Washington last week, Blair boasted that he told Bush that they had to 
deal with Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, in the next two to 
three months.  While it lets Blair bloviate (remember Bush's 
embarrassing "Yo, Blair" open-mike incident, when Blair plead to be 
allowed to go the Middle East and Bush wouldn't let him), Washington is 
planning air strikes and a naval blockade.

The Financial Times quotes a US official as saying “The Americans mean 
business.”  The US is demanding Sudan admit a “hybrid” force of UN and 
African Union peacekeepers.  Similarly, before the bombing of Serbia, 
the US demanded that NATO have unchecked access to that country.  It's 
of course likely that military intervention against Khartoum’s wishes 
would, among other things, risk destroying a separate North-South 
agreement that ended decades of civil war last year.  But that's 
incidental to Washington's goals in Africa.

Regards, CGE

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa7683f2-8a1f-11db-ae27-0000779e2340.html


Scott Edwards wrote:
> 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.
>