[Peace-discuss] Re: Military action in Darfur, like Kosovo

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't see any serious argument here against what I said, Scott.  Do I 
take it you agree that money and materiel should be provided to the 
African Union forces, already in place and accepted by Sudan, rather 
than to a hypothetical UN force, which Sudan won't accept, and which 
can't be in place for some time?  --CGE


Scott Edwards wrote:

> Yes Carl, that is the reasoning I was using. AMIS is ineffectual because 
> they are poor black Africans.
> 
> There is no doubt that AMIS has been ineffectual, and (suprise!) it has 
> little to do with their skin color. They are ineffectual because they 
> have limited equipment (but we sure as hell don't want the US providing 
> equipment because the next step is texans in Sudanese oil fields), they 
> are not allowed in the air (we sure as hell don't want planes in the 
> air, thats just like kosovo!), and the GoS limits their movements and 
> even attacks them (but we sure as hell don't want to support the Zionist 
> conspiracy to get Nigerian and Rwandan troops to stand up to the 
> government, cause that would be anti-Arab).
> 
> But we don't want a UN transfer either. Because it would just be about 
> oil, just like kosovo, and be an Israeli conspiracy.
> 
> For the sake of dialogue, I do my best to put some sticks in the Darfur 
> straw men whisping through on this list, but I can't do anything here.
> 
> regards.
> scott
> 
>> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:48:36 -0500
>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Military action in Darfur, like
>>     Kosovo
>> To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Message-ID: <45241014.3080801 at uiuc.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Awfully suspicious, how the AU troops (accepted by Sudan) are dismissed,
>> and a "legal transfer to the UN" (which Sudan won't accept) is insisted
>> upon.  A certain liberal racism, perhaps? ("Those poor Africans are
>> ineffectual, but if we get a crack UN force in there that can push that
>> 'Arab' government around in defense of those poor blacks...")
>>
>> Anyway, money and materiel can be gotten to the AU forces in situ far
>> faster than a UN force can be introduced, on the UN's own estimate.
>> That's clearly what serious save-Darfur people would be pushing for.  
>> --CGE
>>
>> Scott Edwards wrote:
>> > We are certainly not in disagreement on that point, Carl. Congress has
>> > allocated somewhere in the hundreds of millions to AMIS, $20m in the
>> > most recent mark-up. Thats a result of very hard lobbying by AI and
>> > others. AI and others are calling for still more "additional support"
>> > for AMIS, but between you and I, AMIS isn't bankrupt. Just ineffectual.
>> >
>> > As far as material, thats a harder problem. What is needed is military
>> > capability that would allow the AU forces to see where villages might
>> > burn, and equipment to deploy there in time to stop the killing of
>> > civilians; not by Sudanese forces, but by the Janjawid.
>> >
>> > And not so the AU can kill or fight the Janjawid, but so the mere
>> > presence of troops deters the looting, killing, and raping. And
>> > guarantee aid delivery. Any such improvement of AMIS capability 
>> needs to
>> > come through the UN, though, and not NATO or the Arab League. Because
>> > this cannot be a mission dependant on the political will of NATO or AL
>> > member states. This cannot be confused with AL or NATO member-state
>> > interests. Thats why the legal transfer to the UN is important; though
>> > not apolitical, a legally mandated UN PKO is much harder to manipulate
>> > (whether the GoS, the USG, or the Darfur rebels) than a regional force.
>> >
>> > But it has to happen, because for 2 years, AMIS has been completely
>> > impotent.
>> >
>> > best,
>> > scott
>> >
>> >
>> >> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> >> To: Scott Edwards <scottisimo at hotmail.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Military action in Darfur, like 
>> Kosovo
>> >> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:02:54 -0500
>> >>
>> >> Why aren't those seriously concerned about people in Darfur calling on
>> >> the "world leader [who] has tried the hardest to save the survivors in
>> >> Darfur" (in Nat's ridiculous phrase about George Bush) to transfer
>> >> large amounts of money and materiel to the African Union forces?
>> >>
>> >> Of course the Bush administration wouldn't do that, because they're
>> >> much more interested in using the UN and NATO to threaten Sudan, while
>> >> the Israeli lobby organizes against an "Arab" hate-object.  --CGE
>> >>