[Peace-discuss] RE: a small-scaled metaphor for Darfur

[C. G. Estabrook]

"NATO will be taking an active role in Darfur, and is
currently ... The biggest worry has been a gap in forces that
would allow a 'hurried genocide' before the UN mission is
established ... the exact role NATO will play in the unified
UN mission in Darfur has yet to be decided ... Last night, the
Sudanese parliament voted to reject out-of-hand any UN
peacekeeping force for Darfur..."

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme, as Mark
Twain said.  These circumstances are remarkably similar to
the run-up to Clinton's ("NATO's") three-month bombing
campaign against Serbia, over Kosovo in 1999 -- the same talk
of genocide, the need to establish NATO's (the US's)
"credibility" against a recalcitrant government, a government
that in the US geopolitical view needs to be humbled as a
lesson to others of that ilk...

The NATO attack on Kosovo was a crime that produced the ethnic
massacres that it was advertised to stop (as the Clintonuians
knew it would): we should be on
guard against a repeat in Darfur.  Although there are surely
differences between Kosovo and Darfur, the goals and methods
of the US government remain the same, especially in the
neighborhood (which includes both Serbia and Sudan) of the
region at the center of US foreign policy, the Middle East. 

(Incidentally, don't those "sanctions on oil companies doing
business with the GoS" look good to the USG at least in part
because China is one of Sudan's major customer?) --CGE 


---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:34:14 -0600
>From: "Scott Edwards" <scottisimo at hotmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: a small-scaled metaphor for
Darfur  
>To: galliher at uiuc.edu, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>Carl:
>
>Hi. Yes, the bill does call for support of the ICC
investigations. This 
>would seem a sticking point for the bill, but recall that
after a 
>groundswell of pressure from AI and other human rights orgs,
the US did not 
>veto referral of the Darfur atrocities to the ICC last year
(which is what 
>we all expected). With the caveat that US personnel be
immune, the ICC 
>clause should not alone hold up the bill.
>
>NATO will be taking an active role in Darfur, and is
currently, to a small 
>extent. The main role for NATO will be providing bridging
capacity by 
>proping up the beleagured AMIS force until a security
council-endorsed 
>peacekeeping mission is formulated. At very least, it will
take a few months 
>to get a UN mission together, and AMIS's mandate (and funds)
expire March 
>31st. The biggest worry has been a gap in forces that would
allow a "hurried 
>genocide" before the UN mission is established.
>
>The role of NATO has and will continue to be supporting AMIS,
but despite 
>what grumblings you may hear domestically, the exact role
NATO will play in 
>the unified UN mission in Darfur has yet to be decided, and
won't be until 
>the security council receives the plans for a UN mission from
the 
>Secretariat. The statements you hear re: NATO as a steward
are, I believe, 
>probing rather than a coherent statment of intended policy.
>
>What no one wants is for the peacekeeping mission to go
before the security 
>council, and get voted down (likely by China, and possibly
Russia, though 
>both have shown a softening on the issue). Last night, the
Sudanese 
>parliment voted to reject out-of-hand any UN peacekeping
force for Darfur, 
>almost ensuring the need for a security council vote.
>
>The recent security-arrangement developments make the caluses
in 3127 
>relevant to AMIS mandate expansion moot, but there remains
viable and 
>important clauses, such as ICC support and sanctions on oil
companies doing 
>business with the GoS, and many others.
>
>peace,
>scott
>
>*****************
>Scott Edwards
>Amnesty International, US
>Country Specialist for Sudan
>_________________________________
>Gender Projects Manager
>Coordinative Effort for the Reporting of Rights Violations
(CERRV)
>
>
>>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>>To: Scott Edwards <scottisimo at hotmail.com>, 
>>peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: a small-scaled metaphor for
Darfur
>>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:57:11 -0600
>>
>>"The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (H.R. 3127) asks that
>>the African Union Peacekeeping Force be expanded and given a
>>stronger mandate (including more generous logistical support).
>>It also asserts that the International Criminal Court be
>>assisted to bring justice to those guilty of war crimes in
>>Darfur, Sudan."
>>
>>There are at least two major difficulties with it:
>>
>>[1] The Bush administration remains opposed to the
>>International Criminal Court and so presumably to any form of
>>this bill that contains support for it. A year ago the
>>Security Council considered deploying 10,000 peacekeepers, but
>>the proposal was blocked by the US because of the ICC
requirement.
>>
>>[2] American politicians on all sides -- Bush and Biden, Obama
>>and Brownback -- have made it clear this month that they want
>>NATO to take the lead.  Kosovo is being presented as a good
>>model.  --CGE

  ===============
  C. G. Estabrook, Ph.D., Visiting Scholar
  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  109 Observatory, 901 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana IL 61801
  <www.carlforcongress.org> <www.newsfromneptune.com>
  ===============