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

[Ricky Baldwin]

I'll step back into this alphabet soup just for a
minute...

I think what we are really arguing about is not
whether Darfur needs help (it clearly does), or even
whether "peacekeepers" are needed.  The real dispute
seems to me to be what role the US and NATO will play
in that.

I think it's partly confusing because we don't really
know exactly what the Neocons plan to do.  They seem
to be rattling sabres at about half a dozen countries
at the moment, possibly to keep everyone guessing
(what's an October surprise if there's no surprise?).

There are a number of ways the Administration could
use the work of a lot of good people on this issue: to
justify another Kosovo, to show that there are a lot
of bad problems in the world that they don't 'solve'
like Kosovo when they finally attack Iran or whoever
is next, etc.

I think we all, or most of us, agree that we don't
want a replay of Kosovo.  That isn't what Amnesty is
asking for, certainly, although it may be what we all
get.  Others may be asking for exactly another Kosovo.
 (There is certainly no agreement, still, among
liberals/progressives/leftists on that disaster.)  

And I frankly think it's hard to tell sometimes what
the demand is (I mean from the movement or effort or
tendency as a whole).  The Save Darfur activism seems
to have focussed on portraying the problem, which it
has done well, and I think now it needs to be more
clear about the solution: "must act" isn't good
enough, I'm sorry to say, in the current political
environment.  That is, specific oppose a military
solution is essential, focus on humanitarian aid, and
public challenge to the Bush Administration when they
start "hinting" that they have "other measures
available".

Others with more expertise can improve on my summary,
I'm sure.  The point is, the need to clarify the
demand - in the widest, most open, popular format - is
urgent.  I recall that Amnesty issued a statement in
1991, when the Bush Sr Administration used their
reports as justification for that Gulf War, saying
effectively 'war isn't what we meant', but it was too
late then (and a piece of paper would never have been
enough - we're lucky it was covered at all).

My two cents-
Ricky







--- Scott Edwards <scottisimo at hotmail.com> wrote:

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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com