[Peace-discuss] Re: liberal position on Darfur

[Scott Edwards]

>In both cases the  cry of genocide and "humanitarian" intervention is used 
>to cover
>the USG's imperial machinations to reduce a state (respectively Sudan
>and Serbia) that was unreliable from the US/Israeli POV.

Wow, Carl. Not your intent, I'm sure, but I find this statement insulting. I 
don't think you fully understand what it has taken to get the USG to act, 
and I think a lot of activists would take offense to the notion that their 
years of work can be reduced to an accidental preference alignment with the 
imperialist machinations of the governments they have been pressuring. While 
I appreciate your skepticism of US foreign policy in general, and I share 
it, your analysis of Darfur is simply wrong.

>Of major media, only the BBC has said clearly that Khartoum's
>resistance to "peacekeepers" was based on "well-founded fears of the
>designs of Western governments on Sudan."

Well, Carl, that is what we would expect, given that they are NOT well 
founded fears. The neoimperialist objection of Khartoum is a nasty red 
herring designed to solidify support from Arab states so Khartoum can 
continue its campaign. Apparently, the remarkably transparent ploy has 
actually blinded otherwise sharp folk here at home.

Also, having worked with Alex, let me clarify the position that the excerpt 
you cite slightly distorts. There is no military solution to the conflict 
for the government of Sudan. There is no military solution period. I don't 
think anyone is claiming that there is. The political solution must come, 
and it ultimately will. But so long as rebel and government bullets are 
flying over the heads of civilians, a political solution is impossible. A 
peackeeping force is not the final step in addressing the worsening 
atrocities in Darfur. It is the first step in a political process that may 
or may not yield a lasting peace.

The alternative is to let Darfur burn for decades like the international 
community allowed South Sudan to burn. And millions would die, like they did 
in South Sudan. I'd venture to guess if the international community did 
allow Darfur to burn endlessly, you would claim it is because there are no 
strategic interests for the neocons in Sudan.

Hopefully fortunes will change, and I won't read that post on this list ten 
years from now.

respectfully,
scott

Scott Edwards
Country Specialist for Sudan
Amnesty International


>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:47:50 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Liberal postion on Darfur
>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Message-ID: <4511B706.1070003 at newsfromneptune.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>"People of Darfur: You have suffered unspeakable violence, and America
>has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two
>years, America joined with the international community to provide
>emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force.
>Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide
>additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union
>force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you.
>The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the
>African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more
>robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should
>provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping
>the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not
>approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."
>
>This is the liberal position (for lack of a better name) on Darfur, and
>it hardly distinguishable from (a) the Bush administration's position,
>and (b) the  Clinton administration's position on Kosovo.  In both cases
>the  cry of genocide and "humanitarian" intervention is used to cover
>the USG's imperial machinations to reduce a state (respectively Sudan
>and Serbia) that was unreliable from the US/Israeli POV.
>
>For Clinton, "NATO must act" -- and the situation of Kosovo got worse,
>but Serbia was brought to heel.  For Bush, "the United Nations must act"
>(and NATO nations should provide logistics and "other support"), and the
>situation in Darfur will probably get worse as Sudan, an oil-producing
>state (much of its production goes to China) is put under increasing
>pressure.
>
>Of major media, only the BBC has said clearly that Khartoum's
>resistance to "peacekeepers" was based on "well-founded fears of the
>designs of Western governments on Sudan." Meanwhile US "peace" groups
>and the Israeli lobby have proclaimed "Out of Iraq and into Darfur!"
>
>People honestly concerned about Darfur should listen to the calm common
>sense of Alex de Waal, a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at
>Harvard, an advisor to the African Union, and author of "Darfur: A Short
>History of a Long War":
>
>"I don't believe there is a military solution. It will not defeat the
>holdout rebel groups. What it will do is, it will kill more people,
>create more hunger, create more displacement and make the situation even
>more intractable ... I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the
>solution to Darfur is a political solution. No solution can be imposed
>by any amount of arm twisting, any amount of bluster, any amount of
>military force. Even if we sent 100,000 NATO troops, we would not be
>able to impose a solution. The solution has to come through political
>negotiation."
>
>--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 32, Issue 38
>*********************************************