[Peace-discuss] Re: liberal position on Darfur

Fri Sep 22 20:13:56 CDT 2006

The important question is hardly whether the statement is "insulting" 
but whether it's true.

I don't think you fully understand what it's taken to to get the USG to 
act: the short answer is neocon foreign policy.  Would an "accidental 
preference alignment with ... imperialist machinations" justify support 
for, say, Bush's invasion of Iraq?  ("We supported it because we wanted 
to help Saddam's victims.")

"My analysis of Darfur" (by which I take it you mean my description of 
US policy re Sudan -- roughly like that toward Serbia in 1999) is 
supported by a remark in today's AP dispatch: "...Rice hinted at 
stronger action if Sudan will not back down. 'There are other measures 
at the disposal of the international community should we not be able to 
get the agreement of Sudan,' Rice told reporters."

You can't simply dismiss the clear statements of Neocon policy -- and 
the notable actions that have followed them up -- by your profession of 
faith that they're "NOT well founded fears."

It's not quite clear to me what you mean by "The neoimperialist 
objection of Khartoum is a nasty red herring designed to solidify 
support from Arab states so Khartoum can continue its campaign."  I 
suppose that's the equivalent of saying that "The neoimperialist 
objection of Belgrade in 1999 -- that the US/NATO was attacking Kosovo 
to reduce Serbia to obedience -- is a nasty red herring designed to 
solidify support from European states so Belgrade can continue its 
campaign" of genocide.  If that's what you mean, the objection -- far 
from a "nasty red herring" was simply correct.

And it's surely you who are distorting De Waal's position, which I 
quoted.  He said there is no military solution, and you say it's the 
first step.

The war in South Sudan is in fact over.  Did that come about through the 
introduction of a military force that Khartoum rejected -- the "other 
measures" Rice threatened today?  --CGE

Scott Edwards wrote:
>> 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
>> *********************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss