[Peace-discuss] RE: NATO and Darfur

[Scott Edwards]

The much discussed role of NATO would not, in fact, be as it was in Kosovo.

And, with due respect, it is not the case that NATO would serve even as a 
"steward" of a transferred peacekeeping force. NATO would serve only as a 
bridging between AMIS and a Blue-helmet mission. And, from Eric Reeves:

"Privately, Bush administration officials make clear there was never any 
intention of committing US or NATO troops---nor any belief in the moral and 
contractual obligation (per the terms of the 1948 UN Convention on the 
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) to halt massive, ongoing 
genocidal destruction by all necessary means."

NATO has made clear it will do nothing without Security Council 
authorization (to Bush's dismay), and even then, it would serve only as an 
"enabling" capacity.

And as inflamatory as talk about a NATO role is, it is irrelevant. The 
ongoing discussion concerns how to replace/restructure the AMIS force which 
is unable to meet the "moral and contractual obligation". If there is to be 
discussion about how moral this obligation actually is, so be it. But the 
NATO issue, while I understand the sensitivity, is a Red Herring.

If you have the time and energy, see the DOS's Annual Report on Human 
Right's Practices for Sudan. I have some issues with numbers, but it is 
generally comprehensive, and hot off the "press" (released 2 hours ago).

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61594.htm

Best,
scott



*****************
Scott Edwards
Amnesty International, US
Country Specialist for Sudan
_________________________________
Gender Projects Manager
Coordinative Effort for the Reporting of Rights Violations (CERRV)
_________________________________





>From: peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
>Reply-To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 16
>Date: Wed,  8 Mar 2006 12:01:33 -0600 (CST)
>
>Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to
>	peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. NATO and Darfur (C. G. Estabrook)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:28:36 -0600
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] NATO and Darfur
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Message-ID: <5f81b3b9.95d8aa6f.81e8000 at expms1.cites.uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
><http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060306&s=reeves030806>
>
>--this article in the current New Republic (online) asserts an
>interventionist position quite similar to the Clinton
>administration's on Kosovo.  TNR summarizes it as follows:
>
>"NATO says it won't send troops to Darfur. Bush should say
>clearly: You will. And America will lead the way."
>
>--CGE
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 16
>*********************************************