[Peace-discuss] 9 questions on Darfur

[Ricky Baldwin]

These are all excellent questions, and well worth
thinking and talking about.

I think the comparison to Kosovo is especially worth
noting, although it isn't strictly true that the "only
ethnic cleansing" there has been of the Serbs. 
Certainly since the US attacks there has been a
massive forced exodus of Serbs, which nobody seems to
mind much.  Attacks against the Sinti and Roma people
(often called "Gypsies") and Jews in the whole region
have also increased since the US chose its favorite
ethnicities there.

And it is true that almost all of the "ethnic
cleansing" happened AFTER the US attacked -- I believe
this was the occasion for Chomsky's remark that we had
three options: not intervene, intervene to make the
situation better, and intervene to make the situation
worse (we chose the third - and the "ethnic cleansing"
our government was ostensibly so worried about spiked
dramatically as soon as we attacked, not to mention
the thousands of Kosovar civilians driven from their
homes by the US bombs themselves).

I think Kosovo is still an excellent cautionary tale
and a good example of why we should be wary of the
call to intervene.  The KLA was the US choice, we
should remember, after - as usual - undermining the
better, more democratic alternatives.  They were
always a bad choice; that's why we chose them. 

Tom's other points and questions are also well taken. 
There are certainly, as he says, a number of places
around the globe where "humantitarin intervention"
might be an option - why there?  Worth asking.

Ricky

--- Tom Mackaman <tmackaman at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would like to offer some unsolicited advice on the
> question of Darfur (I'm certainly not arguing for or
> against AWARE's sponsorship on this question.) 
>    
>   It seems that the heart of the matter on Darfur is
> the growing movement to demand western
> "peacekeepers" be deployed to the region.  I think
> that members of AWARE should ask some difficult
> questions of themselves and of Mr. Schwartz.  Among
> them:
>    
>   1.  Under what conditions can American, EU, or UN
> occupation serve the interests of peace?  I would
> submit they cannot.  A short but very big question
> for the peace movement to consider!  
>    
>   2.  Who will run the show in Darfur, those
> interested in defending it, or Western imperialism? 
> The former think that they can use the latter for
> peace.  I think that is naive.  Any "peacekeeping"
> force in Darfur will come only once the major powers
> have hammered out amongst themselves the division of
> labor and the spoils.  It is more than likely that
> intervention has not yet taken place precisely
> because of inter-imperialist conflict.
>    
>   3  What is the history of the conflict and what
> role does oil play in it?  In fact, the development
> of oil and the discovery of more extensive reserves
> seems to have been at the heart of both the
> independence movement and the ruthless reaction from
> the Sudanese government.  China has become the
> leading customer for Sudanese oil, and is reluctant
> to support measures against Sudan for its own
> predatory reasons.  Certainly Bush, Blair,
> Berlusconi, Merkel, Chirac, et.al., are acutely
> aware of this situation, and it will figure
> prominently in any decision to intervene.
>    
>   4.  What is the actual situation?  If most death
> in Darfur is owed to disease, famine, lack of
> infrastructure and poverty, then is calling for
> military intervention the appropriate response?  I
> ask these questions sincerely.  No doubt great
> violence has unfolded and continues, but to abandon
> all critical faculties on the matter would be
> dangerous.  The lessons of Yugoslavia should be
> called to mind.  Many on the left were bamboozled by
> charges of genocide carried out by Serbs.   These
> claims turned out to have been fraudulant.  Indeed,
> the only "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo has been of
> the Serbs.  And the KLA, far from being a
> "liberation" style army, has turned out to be a
> major crime cartel.
>    
>   5.  What would a balance sheet of western
> "peacekeeping" efforts look like?  Not good!  There
> is much to consider here, starting with Afghanistan,
> Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Haiti, and going all the
> way back to Korea.
>    
>   6.  When does "humanitarian" military intervention
> become a demand?  And why are the people who are
> clamoring for a military presence in Darfur not
> arguing for intervention in Iraq to defend Sunnis
> from genocide at the hands of the Americans and
> their stooges, or to defend Palestinians from
> Israeli ethnic cleansing?  In fact, unwittingly or
> not, they are bestowing illegitimate humanitarian
> credentials on western imperialism, which is
> dripping from head to toe in blood.  Can militarism
> be holy in Sudan and heinous in Iraq?
>    
>   7.  Who are those who are advocating western
> military intervention?  No doubt the vast majority
> are sincere, but it is also doubtless the case--as
> was the case in Yugoslavia--that a number of
> liberals and ex-radicals will utilize Darfur as an
> attempt to make their peace with US imperalism.
>    
>   8.  Who is to blame for Darfur?  Certainly the
> Sudanese government is the most immediate culprit,
> but standing above it all is the historical legacy
> of western and especially British imperialism--which
> carved up the continent just as it did with the Arab
> lands-- coupled with the continuing dominance of
> global finance capital.  This is actually not an
> irrelevent historical point, as those who are
> arguing for military intervention are calling for
> another dose of that same Bad Medicine.   
>    
>   9.  Why is the peace movement being courted?
>    
>   Regards,
>   Tom
>     
> > _______________________________________________
> 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