[Peace-discuss] Re: Re: liberal position on Darfur (C. G. Estabrook)

Tue Sep 26 09:26:41 CDT 2006

I wasn't involved in work with re: Kosovo, so I won't venture to comment.

I have been, for the past 2 and a half years, been intimately involved in 
pressuring the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference, the AU, 
and the USG to take certain action regarding Darfur. The USG was never 
interested in pressuring Khartoum. The realists wanted a Sudan like 
Pakistan: helpful in WoT issues, in exchange for willful silence on that 
state's domestic transgressions.

The neocons are like all political animals, and when it was clear there was 
domestic support in the USG for action, and political consequences for 
inaction, the admin finally started taking half-measured steps.

The UN is already in Sudan. With 10,000 troops, in fact. If the GoS is 
worried about the UN coming in and stealing oil, encouraging young women to 
show midrifts, and setting up military bases for "Isreali Zionists", why 
hasn't it asked UNMIS to leave?

I did not misrepresent Alex's position.  Alex was commenting on how to 
address the lack of support for the Darfur Peace Agreement. The GoS's 
response for widespread disapproval of the DPA by the Darfur populace has 
been to bomb them. That is not a solution. To quote Alex as you did ""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."

He is referring to the DPA holdout and the GoS response, Carl. Alex is NOT 
opposeds to a UN PKO.

Finally, the 1706-mandated UN PKO should not be a "military operation". Like 
ANY peacekeeping operation, it's design is to ensure distribution of badly 
needed humanitarian aid, to serve as monitors to the implementation of the 
DPA or any forthcoming agreement, and to "take all steps to protect" 
civilians from the Janjaweed.

A UNPKO is not comparable to the NATO bombing campaign in Serbia, and any 
comparison of such IS a red herring.

respectrfully,
scott

*****************
Scott Edwards
Country Specialist for Sudan
Amnesty International, US

>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 32, Issue 43
>Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:00:45 -0500 (CDT)
>
>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. Re: Re: liberal position on Darfur (C. G. Estabrook)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:13:56 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: liberal position on Darfur
>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Message-ID: <45148A54.5020606 at uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>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
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 43
>*********************************************