[Peace-discuss] Darfur rally

[C. G. Estabrook]

[From the blog MRzine. --CGE] 

  Who Wants Peace in Darfur?
  by Yoshie Furuhashi

The "Save Darfur" rally today was aired on C-Span.  The rally
was small -- only several thousands according to Reuters
("Thousands March to Stop Darfur Killing," 30 April 2006). 
And the crowd in attendance was overwhelmingly white.  But,
boy, it was a professionally-staged photo op, with celebs,
politicos, and exiles from Sudan at the podium expertly framed
by the U.S. Capitol in the background.

The timing of the rally was perfect, designed to coincide --
and scuttle -- the Abuja peace negotiations between the rebels
and Khartoum brokered by the African Union, whose deadline is
midnight today.  And sure enough, the rebels rejected the
peace deal:

    "The rebels called for changes to the deal hours before an
African Union deadline -- and after the Sudanese government
indicated it would accept the proposal ... The Sudanese
government had said it was ready to sign the agreement.  But a
spokesman for one of Sudan's rebel factions said the proposal
does not adequately address implementation nor their key
demands for a vice president from Darfur and more autonomy. 
Hahmed Hussein, a spokesman for the Justice and Equality
Movement, said he was speaking for both rebel factions." 
(Associated Press, "Rebels Reject Draft Darfur Peace Deal,"
New York Times 30 April 2006)

Really, why should the rebels accept any peace deal, when
Washington, given an excuse by the pro-war rally organized by
an odd alliance of evangelicals and establishment Jews[1], is
pushing for NATO interventions just at this moment?  "U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday that the
African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in Sudan's Darfur
region was not strong enough and that NATO should take on a
larger role there" (Reuters, "Rice Urges Expanded NATO Role in
Darfur," 30 April 2006).  The rebels would naturally think:
"Why don't we wait till Washington sends us NATO or UN or US
troops to weaken the government's hands, so we can get a
better deal?"

Remember how the specter of an international military
intervention prolonged the civil war in Yugoslavia?  General
Charles G. Boyd puts it cautiously: "It . . . appears to be
true the United States encouraged [Alija] Izetbegovic to
reject the EC-sponsored cantonization plan agreed upon in two
separate meetings in late winter 1992" ("Making Peace with the
Guilty: The Truth about Bosnia," Foreign Affiars
September/October 1995).  It's the same dynamics in Sudan ...
except the prize this time is more valuable than territories:
"Sudan has proven reserves of some 563 million barrels of oil,
with the potential for far more in regions of the country made
inaccessible by conflict" (Esther Pan, "China, Africa, and
Oil," Council on Foreign Relations, 12 January 2006).
Putting an end to the Darfur conflict now would consolidate
Beijing's dominant position in Sudan's oil industry:

    "China has a $4 billion investment in the country widely
believed to have the largest untapped oil reserves in Africa.
 The China National Petroleum Corp. has a 40% stake in Greater
Nile Petroleum, which owns oil fields, a pipeline, a large
refinery and a port.  Last year, China purchased more than
half of Sudan's oil exports.  Conversely, Sudan accounted for
6% of China's oil imports, about 200,000-plus barrels a day."
 (Jon D. Markman, "How China Is Winning the Oil Race," MSN
Money, 25 April 2006)

Who wants peace in Darfur?  Certainly not Washington... 

_______________

1. [The note is to this article at <jewschool.com/?p=10451>:  
"Jewschool is the web's leading progressive Jewish weblog,
featuring 30 contributors from 5 countries and over 50,000
readers per month."]
 	
  Jewish Leadership on Darfur
  by David Kelsey // April 17th, 2006

Is the Jewish community helping the situation in Darfur by
championing the Dafurians’ cause, or are we poisoning the well
of potential solidarity through our leadership?

Obviously Jewish activism on Darfur is ecumenical.  And it is
certainly promoted as such.

“The Save Darfur Coalition is an alliance of over 100
faith-based, humanitarian and human rights organizations. Our
mission is to raise public awareness and to mobilize an
effective unified response to the atrocities that threaten the
lives of two million people in the Darfur region.”

But the ecumenical language of the Coalition it is somewhat of
a facade.  The Save Darfur Coalition is heavily (overly?)
Jewish, and was created by the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum and the American Jewish World Service.

It appears that intensive Jewish leadership and organizational
support is viewed with cynicism from other possible allies for
the Darfurians, including crucial African-American
organizations.  Like say, the NAACP, whose signature is
notably absent on the Unity Statement.

Could it be that our commitment to Darfur is somehow viewed
with suspicion when The Jews are calling for yet another
intervention against Islamic aggression?  Is it unfair to
suspect that the OU might need an ulterior political motive to
stand alongside the Reform Movement other than a purely moral
objection to the plight of the Darfurians?

Can we at least try to understand why some might be unwilling
to give us the benefit of the doubt?

In the U.S., the Holocaust is the primary lens in which to
view all genocides in the past and present.   In order to
maintain credibility (which translates into continued and
expanded Holocaust education, the major justification usually
offered for Israel’s creation) don’t we have to react with
alarm this way, or risk our mandate which allows us to promote
our particular Jewish concerns provided we include universal ones?

If there is concern about our true intentions, and discomfort
about what the Jews really want in the wake of Neocon support
for the Iraq War and the broader Israeli push for U.S.
pressure on Iran, including the possibility of a preemptive
strike, does our heading the Save Darfur Coalition hinder, not
help, its chance of receptivity?

Judging by the heavily Jewish signatures of the mission, it
seems it may indeed be a hard sell, at least if The Jews are
the ones selling it.

We may indeed only mean well.  But we are not the best
strategists. This effort needs the prominent leadership of
African-American groups to succeed. 

Or perhaps, just not a prominent Jewish leadership.   Perhaps
the moral compass of the Jewish community no longer carries a
lot of weight nor enjoys widespread trust – either
internationally or domestically – when it comes to our calls
for intervention, particularly one that may require military
action.

Things are different now.

   ###