[Peace-discuss] Re: Darfur Colonized by Peacekeepers?

Mon Aug 6 18:23:22 CDT 2007

Thanks for the additional background and update, Ricky. It's all helpful information re understanding a dreadful situation, w/ the US yet again backing the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

  Jenifer 

Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
  I'll chime in on the Congo, Jenifer, if you don't
mind.

The Congo Wars (starting with the Rwandan genocide and
related violence in Uganda, Burundi and elsewhere -
Tutsis killing Hutus, Hutus killing Tutsis among
others) did kill around 5-6 million people in the
area. This puts the Congo Wars on the scale of "WW2",
but most world governments turned a blind eye. Most
citizens don't even know it happened.

The US had supported one of the worst dictators -
Mobutu Sese Seko - in the Congo for years, part of the
Cold War maneuvering. He was overthrown in the the
"First Congo War" by invading armies who then decided
to stick around. Gold, coltan, and other minerals,
some particularly valuable to hip electronics
industries, were at issue, not oil, but the principles
are about the same.

The war is officially over, and though there was an
alarming increase in violence leading up to elections
in Congo last year, war - as such - didn't break out
again. But large parts of the country (Congo is as
big as Western Europe) are still terrorized by bands
of paramilitaries and various nasty players. Women
and children are particularly at risk to the most
gruesome torture, especially in the areas around the
mines.

UN peacekeepers are there, too, but the mission may be
undermined by a number of factors, including that - as
elsewhere - some of the peacekeepers may also be
guilty of rape and other atrocities. Also, with so
much attention focussed on Sudan, Congo is still not a
big priority - in fact - though there are a lot of
people there doing great work, as far as I can tell.

I think, as with so many of the nastiest conflicts,
it's hard to know what would really make it much
better at this point. Of course, as is too often the
case, it would have helped if the US hadn't been
supporting a coldblooded mass murderer for so many
years. (Asking the opponents of such policies, as the
solve-it-with-violence folks like to do, what *we*
would suggest now, now that the *pro-violence*
policies have led to such a catastrophe, is, well,
dishonest, and we should watch out for this trap.

But I personally think, if anybody cares what I think,
that there are still some actions that could help,
without a US or NATO invasion force (which would amke
things worse, and it's unlikely at the moment anyway).
There are human rights organizations there that
could offer advice, and have, and I think it ought to
be possible to slog through some kind of diplomatic
(partial) solution.

Of course the real success (in human terms) of any
such thing would depend on the support of ordinary
people, for example, Congolese activists, human rights
NGOs, and an international solidarity network could
help a lot. A lot of Europeans and Canadian and
American liberals deciding what to do without
consulting the Congolese affected could be disastrous.

But some obvious pressure points that could be of use
could be: the mineral trade (somebody has to buy all
that stuff) and arms trade (has to come from
somewhere, though it's usually hard to track down,
especially if it's not a priority). And I'd argue the
US has an obligation there, due to its support for
Mobutu Sese Seko if nothing else, to help provide some
economic alternatives, not exactly along the lines of
the Marshall Plan, but a thoughtful version therof,
something like that.

Who knows? Fair trade computer chips?

There's a lot more to talk over, of course, but this
is already long. I'll stop for now with the
observation that there's a Quaker group focussed on
the African Great Lakes region and a new Uganda group
organized by AWARE-ista Shara Esbenshade and her
friends. Groups like this deal with various aspects
of a tangled web there in the region, all of which
seem to be interrelated.

Ricky

--- Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

> I appreciate your sending this, Scott. It
> corroborates what I've heard from others, and allows
> me to hope there is interest in resolving the Darfur
> crisis/genocide that doesn't have US (and others)
> for humanitarian rather than ulterior motives. 
> 
> Would you please comment on the situation in the
> Congo, especially the apparent lack of interest
> world-wide, when reportedly there are far greater
> atricities happening there?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jenifer 
> 
> Scott Edwards wrote:
> P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { 
> FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } 
> Interesting article, Carl. Thanks for passing it
> along. A couple factual corrections: 
> 
> 1769 does not authorize a force "in addition" to
> AMIS. Rather, it will be a joint UN-AU force, as
> demanded by Khartoum. Second, while Ch 7 of the
> charter does grant an inherent mandate above
> self-preservation (in this instance, the UN/AU
> police and military personnel may act to protect
> civilians and aid workers), it is not a blank check,
> and the UN/AU opereations will be restricted in a
> number of deterimental ways. The biggest one is
> that, despite the need, the force will be unable to
> confiscate illegal arms, either from the
> pro-government death sqauds, nor the armed
> opposition groups who've been targeting aid
> providers of late.
> 
> Third, the resolution grants a mandate to protect
> civilians "without prejudice of the GoS's
> responsibility to do so." How should that be read?
> It should be "even though there is this PKO, the GoS
> still has an inherent responsibility to protect
> civilians." How will it be read in Khartoum? "Even
> though there is this force, we can countinue our
> counter-insurgency operations, even if they target
> civilians." So don't fret, all, the resolution
> doesn't restrict the Government in any meaningful
> way. In fact, the GoS (suprise) resisted the
> resolution until provisions for sanctions were
> removed. So its all good--even if the GoS continues
> to target civilians, the international community
> won't impose multilateral sanctions (eg, freezing of
> private oversees assets, travel bans on those
> responsible, etc). 
> 
> Fourthly, it is simply not the case that the
> international community has portrayed this as a
> simple "Arab on Black" conflict. Maybe some small
> zealous, and poorly informed, individuals have, but
> most haven't. The largest human rights
> organizations, such as Amnesty and HRW, have never
> called it a genocide, nor portrayed the conflict as
> anything but complicated. 
> 
> Fifth, the force is not intended to "quell the
> strife" in Darfur. The purpose of the force, even if
> it doesn't jive with trendy notions of
> neo-colonialism under the guise of humanitarian
> intervention, is to guarantee the security of 3
> million people who've been forced from the homes by
> opposition groups and the government alike, and/or
> who are on the brink of starvation and rely on food
> and medical aid. Thats right...it's not about US
> access to oil. (gasp!) For one, the US has no
> command and control authority in the force, nor will
> it send a single troop, and secondly, this was a
> unanimous vote. China and Russia, not fans of US
> imperialism, were critical in getting the resolution
> passed.
> 
> Will the force, which will reamain primarily
> African, "fix" Darfur? No. And no one with any
> credibility has ever claimed that, in contradiction
> to the straw-man the article whisps over. What is
> and always has been needed is a political solution.
> And it is creeping along slowly. Will the force
> change the peace process? Probably. If neither side
> is able to gain advantage by emptying large swaths
> of land of its inhabitants, forcibly recruting
> children, or providing their troops with spoils of
> war (eg, rape and livestock), they have little
> reason to carry on in the hopes they can better the
> bargaining position. But that is all an aside to the
> purpose force. Political developments aside, without
> security for aid provision, tens or possibly
> hundreds of thosands more would die. And if that
> isn't a good enough reason to suspend opposition to
> multilateral intervention in this case, then there
> is no meeting ground for us to exchange ideas.
> 
> best,
> scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:36 -0500
> > From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Darfur colonized by
> peacekeepers?
> > To: Peace Discuss
> 

> > Message-ID: <46B33B94.1010907 at uiuc.edu>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
> format=flowed
> > 
> > Thursday 2 August 2007
> > Darfur: colonised by ‘peacekeepers’
> > 
> > The new 26,000-strong UN force being sent to the
> war-torn western 
> > province of Sudan is likely to stir up further
> tensions rather than 
> > deliver peace.
> > 
> > Philip Cunliffe
> > 
> > The United Nations (UN) Security Council yesterday
> passed resolution 
> > 1769. It establishes another peacekeeping mission
> in Sudan, UNAMID, for 
> > Sudan’s war-torn western province of Darfur. With
> a total authorised 
> > strength of 26,000, UNAMID is expected to be the
> largest UN peacekeeping 
> > operation in the world by next year. What’s more,
> UNAMID peacekeepers 
> > will deploy under the terms of ‘Chapter VII’ of
> the UN Charter, which 
> > legally entitles them to use force beyond
> self-defence. In other words, 
> > this will not be a neutral, monitoring contingent,
> but a militarised 
> > force and de facto protagonist in Darfur’s
> conflict.
> > 
> > The creation of UNAMID comes on top of the two
> other peacekeeping 
> > missions already in Sudan: the 7,000-strong
> African Union force deployed 
> > in Darfur, and the 10,000-strong UN peacekeeping
> force policing a 
> > ceasefire in south Sudan since 2005 (UNMIS). In
> June this year, the 
> > European Union also began planning its own
> 3,000-strong peacekeeping 
> > operation to police the border between Sudan, Chad
> and the Central 
> > African Republic. Further south, Africa is already
> host to the world’s 
> > largest UN peacekeeping operation, the
> 18,000-strong MONUC operation in 
> > the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are some
> further 36,000-odd UN 
> > peacekeepers scattered across the continent (see
> the table below). In 
> > light of all these multinational forces descending
> on Sudan and already 
> > stationed across Africa, it is unsurprising that
> some analysts have 
> > pointedly asked whether Africa is in the process
> of being ‘re-colonised’ 
> > by the UN (1). The reality is more complex,
> however, though no less 
> > disturbing.
> > 
> > The UN’s latest peacekeeping plan for Darfur is
> designed to quell the 
> > strife that erupted in the province in 2003, when
> local rebels took up 
> > arms against the central government in Khartoum.
> The conflict is 
> > complex, with a variety of interlocking factions
> and ethnic groups whose 
> > political antagonisms and struggle with the
> central government gird 
> > longstanding rivalries over the region’s depleted
> resources (2). But it 
> > is not only regional politics and economics that
> represent a barrier to 
> > peace – the international community’s involvement
> in the conflict has 
> > served to prolong and escalate the bloodshed.
> > 
> > Evading the bloody involution of the American
> crusade to liberate Iraq, 
> > a swathe of Western politicians, human rights
> groups and liberal 
> > intellectuals have tried collectively to regroup
> around Darfur (3). 
> > Dictated by a desire to cohere the agenda of
> international 
> > interventionism, these groups have systematically
> portrayed the conflict 
> > in Darfur as a genocide launched by racist,
> fanatical ‘Arabs’ against 
> > victimised ‘Africans’ (4). For the incoming
> governments of Gordon Brown 
> > and Nicolas Sarkozy in Britain and France, a joint
> focus on Darfur – 
> > complete with a promise to visit the refugee camps
> – has helped to 
> > dissociate them from the disaster of Iraq, while
> simultaneously 
> > affirming their moral authority to dictate affairs
> around the globe (5).
> > 
> > This skewed presentation of the conflict has
> warped its dynamics, by 
> > offering Darfuri rebels the tantalising prospect
> that they could 
> > opportunistically convert international sympathy
> into military 
> > intervention in their favour. According to a State
> Department official a 
> > few years back, the rebels ‘let the village
> burnings go on, let the 
> > killing go on, because the more international
> pressure that’s brought to 
> > bear on Khartoum, the stronger their position
> grows’ (6). Transfixed by 
> > the moral gaze of the international community, the
> Sudan Liberation 
> > Movement splintered, with various factions
> jostling for advantage and 
> > demanding international guarantees and troops,
> thereby wrecking last 
> > year’s peace negotiations (7). One African analyst
> described the 
> > background to the earlier 2005 peace negotiations:
> ‘Unlike many 
> > liberation movements in Africa, which had to
> depend on the people to 
> > build and plan with them, these rebels have too
> many willing regional 
> > and international actors indulging their delusions
> of grandeur.’ (8) If 
> > this were not enough, the intense international
> pressure on Khartoum 
> > also encouraged other rebels – this time in
> eastern Sudan – to renew 
> > their war against Khartoum, further destabilising
> Africa’s largest 
> > country (9).
> > 
> > Peace negotiations are supposed to restart before
> the deployment of the 
> > new UN force. But given that the insertion of this
> new force into Darfur 
> > is the logical extension of the previous
> internationalisation of the 
> > conflict, there is no reason to think that the UN
> presence will not 
> > further upset the local balance of forces, as each
> belligerent 
> > reorganises their strategy around the new military
> presence on the 
> > ground, with rebel factions potentially goading
> the UN into military 
> > action on their behalf.
> > 
> > The more that African governments – or indeed
> would-be revolutionary 
> > movements – cede their own authority to a
> shimmering and remote 
> > international community, the more that ordinary
> Africans’ lives are 
> > beholden to more distant and unaccountable powers
> in place of their own 
> > governments. Under the auspices of the UN, wars
> are no longer treated as 
> > political affairs, with peace founded on Africans’
> own efforts, but as 
> > ‘conflict management’ activities to be
> administered by bureaucrats and 
> > jet-setting international diplomats.
> > 
> > Although the substance of political independence
> in Africa is 
> > undoubtedly being eroded by the relentless
> expansion of peacekeeping, 
> > the UN is much too ramshackle to represent
> anything like a real empire. 
> > The growing intrusiveness of the international
> community represents not 
> > colonialism but a new form of international
> hegemony – albeit one that 
> > is no less alarming and in many ways more
> insidious. Under colonialism, 
> > by annexing and conquering territories,
> imperialist powers assumed 
> > direct political responsibility for their colonies
> – a system that at 
> > least had the benefit of making clear who was
> oppressing whom. Today, 
> > the international community preaches human rights
> instead of racial 
> > supremacy, and it compromises a variety of actors:
> states, 
> > state-sponsored mega-NGOs, the UN and other
> international and regional 
> > organisations.
> > 
> > Not only are there no clear lines of institutional
> accountability in 
> > this decentralised network – there is also no
> single agent that is 
> > willing to be held responsible for particular
> outcomes. This moralised 
> > multilateralism lends itself to passing the buck:
> states blame the UN, 
> > the UN blames states, and both blame Africans for
> their corruption and 
> > backwardness
 In these circumstances, the
> scrambling of political 
> > responsibilities is usually resolved by greater
> coercion: sanctions, 
> > Security Council resolutions and punitive
> international laws. And, of 
> > course, by the deployment of more and more
> peacekeepers, more heavily 
> > armed. This new international system can only bode
> badly for Sudan and 
> > Africa as a whole.
> > 
> > [peacekeeping statistics]
> > 
> > Philip Cunliffe is co-editor of Politics Without
> Sovereignty: A Critique 
> > of Contemporary International Relations (UCL
> Press, 2007).
> > _____________________________
> > 
> > (1) Martin Plaut, The UN’s all-pervasive role in
> Africa, BBC News 18 
> > July 2007
> > 
> > (2) Mahmood Mamdani, The Politics of Naming:
> Genocide, Civil War, 
> > Insurgency, London Review of Books, 8 March 2007
> > 
> > (3) On the wide variety of political groupings
> supporting intervention 
> > in Darfur, see Mahmood Mamdani, The Politics of
> Naming: Genocide, Civil 
> > War, Insurgency, London Review of Books, 8 March
> 2007
> > 
> > (4) Mahmood Mamdani, The Politics of Naming:
> Genocide, Civil War, 
> > Insurgency, London Review of Books, 8 March 2007
> > 
> > (5) BBC News, Brown and Sarkozy vow Darfur trip,
> 20 July 2007
> > 
> > (6) Cited in Roberto Belloni, ‘The trouble with
> humanitarianism’, Review 
> > of International Studies, 33:3, July 2007, p461
> > 
> > (7) Alex de Waal, I will not sign, London Review
> of Books, 30 November 2006
> > 
> > (8) Alex de Waal, I will not sign, London Review
> of Books, 30 November 2006
> > 
> > (9) Mark Doyle, Sudan’s interlocking wars, BBC
> News, 10 May 2006
> > 
> > reprinted from:
>
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3697/
> > 
> > ###
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> New home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts
> here.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! -
> their life, your story.
> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >
_______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow 

---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070806/b8092c4a/attachment.htm