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

[Scott Edwards]

Carl:

Good points, and I would share your concern about being on guard as it 
relates to a repeat of history.

When the US actions in Kosovo are identified as illegal by most folk, they 
are speaking of tactics, rather than the course of international relations 
that led to the bombings. Bombings, by their very nature, are not "smart" 
and invariably cause additional harm.  It is only when personnel are on the 
ground, able to intervene directly, that a peacekeeping force will really 
have the power to enforce some semblance of peace.

We are unlikely to see a bombing campaign in Sudan. The key reason (other 
than humanitarian) that Darfur needs peacekeepers is because there are so 
many factions armed, and each incident of violence harms peace talks. 
Civilians need protection from roving gangs and loosley aligned militias 
more so than from the military. Aerial bombing, aside from being hardly 
discriminate, could not be defended as a tactic necessary to acheive peace 
(nor in Kosovo, in my opinion, but that is besides the point).

In fact, the US has not been keen on flexing power of Sudan precisely 
because of it's perceived important role in terrorism issues, its 
geopolitical situation, and US investments in the Comprehensive Peace 
Agreement. It's only been after a grounswell of pressure, especially from 
Bush's religious constituents, that we've seen the US government more apt to 
condemn the Khartoum regime.

Whatver motivations might be, my primary concern is a security situation 
that will allow for delivery of humanitarian aid. A situation that will 
allow NGO's to get on the ground and begin providing care to refugees, 
victims of sexual violence, and a huge orphaned population.

respectfully,
scott





>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 11:50:52 -0600
>
>"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>
>   ===============