[Peace-discuss] Re: Re: Re: liberal position on Darfur

[Scott Edwards]

Ricky:

Amnesty certainly isn't calling for a NATO role in any peacekeeping 
operation. I don't think anyone who is taken seriously in Darfur advocacy is 
calling for a NATO military operation. That certainly isn't what the USG is 
calling for, either, in fact. As per the pressure of advocacy groups in the 
US, the administration is supporting SC resolution 1706 which provides for a 
transfer of the ineffectual African Union mission (AMIS) to a UN-led 
operation. All the sabre rattling the admin is doing with regards to Sudan 
is to get Bashir to drop objections to a UN operation, like the one in the 
South, so they can wash their hands with the mess and claim they did all 
they could for November.

This situation is so remarkably different from Kosovo that I'm just confused 
as to why it keeps coming up on this list.

The "must act" push of the varying advocacy orgs is a bit foggy, I agree. 
But that is because the exact demands are so nuanced. What is wanted: A 
chapter 7 mandated UN peacekeeping operation in Darfur to ensure: the 
delivery of humanitarian aid, the protection of the displaced from bandits 
and the janjaweed, the protection of women from the widespread rape that 
occurs in Darfur, protection of children from recruitment by the 
government-opposed rebels, and the implemetation of the DPA or whatever 
forthcoming peace agreement there will be.

If there is a similarity to a US-led bombing campaign in Southern Europe, I 
fail to see it.

As for Amnesty's position on Darfur, it can all be found here:
http://darfur.amnestyusa.org/site/c.ggLLIYOHKrF/b.1847455/k.BE16/DARFUR_CRISIS_Home.htm

If there is any additional clarification needed regarding Amnesty 
International's position on Darfur, I'm the person to ask. But I think it is 
all there.

As for the 1991 report you reference, I was 12 at the time.

However, your point about the need for clear demands is well-taken, and is a 
position that I believe is well-represented in AI today.

best,
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 50
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:22:34 -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: Re: liberal position on Darfur (C. G.	Estabrook)
>       (Ricky Baldwin)
>    2. Chavez and the devil? (Morton K. Brussel)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Re: liberal position on Darfur (C. G.
>	Estabrook)
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Message-ID: <20060927153101.86510.qmail at web39714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>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
>
>
>
>