Recently, MaryScott O’Connor, the founder and proprietor of “MyLeftWing”, has exhorted the blogosphere to “wake the fuck up” about the ongoing slaughter of civilians in Darfur, a region in southern Sudan. MSOC cited with approval a recent New York Times article by the neocon author Nicolas Kristof, calling for more extensive American/European intervention in Sudan’s internal political situation.
Quite frankly, and with all due respect to MSOC and her obvious desire to take action in the face of a human tragedy that has claimed the lives of between 30,000 and 300,000 people and displaced perhaps two million more as refugees, I am appalled at MSOC’s uncritical acceptance of Kristof’s proposals, and have undertaken to rebut Kristof’s proposals one by one (or rather, MSOC’s summarisation of them).
ON EDIT: I CORRECTED THE FIGURES ON THE NUMBER OF DEAD IN DARFUR TO REFLECT VARYING ASSERTIONS, WITH THE LOWEST PUBLISHED FIGURE BEING 30,000 AND THE HIGHEST BEING 300,000.
In case it’s just too painful to read Kristof’s entire article, let me summarise his MOST excellent observations about what needs to happen – and how WE can help MAKE it happen
MSOC’s “Wake the Fuck Up!” Diary
First: Financial support for the African Union peacekeeping
Already done. The AU needs more troops, not more money, but the African countries don’t want to get more deeply involved.
Second: Expanded U.N. security force in Sudan
Sudan’s government said that it adamantly opposes this expanded force and that it will make Sudan a “graveyard” for these troops. Oh, and there’s also that little issue of international sovereignty (the UN can only send in troops when it’s invited), plus the issue of where the troops will be drawn. The US? None to spare in the numbers that are needed. What would it take, anyway, to stabilise the situation? 10,000 troops? 30,000? More? Who will contribute these troops, if not the Americans. The Brits? Sorry, none to spare–too busy propping up the US in Afghanistan. The Germans? I was based in Germany, had lots of NATO joint exercises with the Germans, field trained with their officers, and they are HOPELESS–the battle-hardened Sudanese would chew a German force into itty little bits. Well, the French are better, but the French aren’t going to send 10,000 troops into Sudan–unless they’re promised lots and lots of oil. There are no “UN troops”–the UN takes its troops from contributions from the armies of nation-states. No government has volunteered, or will volunteer, to send ten thousand of its best-trained troops into Darfur for this ill-defined mission (stop everybody fighting…and then what?).
Sudan threatens to pull out of AU
Friday 03 March 2006 5:22 PM GMTA Sudanese minister has said his country might pull out of the African Union if the AU’s Peace and Security Council approves replacement of the AU force in Darfur with a UN force, Aljazeera reports.
Alsammani al-Wasilla, Sudan’s minister of state for foreign affairs, has reiterated Khartoum’s rejection of the proposal for deployment of international troops in Darfur, Aljazeera’s correspondent in Khartoum said on Friday
AU foreign ministers are to meet on 10 March in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to decide on the transition, agreed upon earlier in principle.
Earlier, Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, warned Darfur would become a “graveyard” for any foreign military contingent entering the region against Khartoum’s will.
AP has quoted the top UN envoy in Sudan as saying that the Sudanese government has launched a campaign to stop a UN force from taking over peace-keeping duties from AU troops.
On Tuesday, Jan Pronk said an anti-UN climate is heating up strongly in the Sudanese capital, with threats and warnings, and fear that handing over to a UN force would put Sudan “in the same situation as Iraq a couple of years ago”.On 12 January, ambassadors on the AU’s Peace and Security Council agreed in principle to hand over peace-keeping to the UN but left a final decision to a ministerial meeting scheduled for Friday.
Third: Create no fly zone. Sudan is bombing its own people. Make it a no fly zone and tell them if they violate it we’ll bomb the everloving SHIT out of their airplanes. Their AIR FORCE.
Um, again–who is “we”? The UN hasn’t got an air force. Who has one? NATO? Ok, so that’s the French, the Brits, or the Americans. So MSOC is endorsing Kristof’s proposal that NATO, or an individual nation-state like the US (maybe that’s “we”) conduct a unilateral attack on Sudan in violation of the UN charter and in violation of the national sovereignty of Sudan. Attacking Sudan’s air force would be an act of war. And this is exactly what the United States did in Iraq. The UN is not going to pass a resolution endorsing a “no fly zone”, anyway, so this would have to be done outside the UN. Not only that, but “we” will need the cooperation and goodwill of the Sudanese government to broker and maintain peace within the borders of Sudan–and that’s going to be impossible to do once we “bomb the shit” out of their air force. Governments tend to hold grudges against nations who destroy their air force.
Fourth: The House should pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose sanctions and pressure on Sudan to stop the violence.
The United States has had total sanctions against Sudan since 1997. The violence has escalated since then. You can’t threaten somebody with a cessation of trade if you don’t trade with them.
The United States has imposed economic sanctions against Sudan since 1997, prohibiting trade and investment by U.S. businesses in Sudan. In April 2004, as part of a strategy to encourage the Sudanese peace process, the U.S. did not impose additional sanctions under the 2002 Sudan Peace Act.
Fifth, Mr. Bush should use the bully pulpit. He should talk about Darfur in his speeches and invite survivors to the Oval Office. He should wear a green ”Save Darfur” bracelet — or how about getting a Darfur lawn sign for the White House? (Both are available, along with ideas for action, from www.savedarfur.org.) He can call Hosni Mubarak and other Arab and African leaders and ask them to visit Darfur. He can call on China to stop underwriting this genocide.
Sudan harbours five suspects in a 1995 assassination attempt on Mubarak that nearly succeeded. I rather doubt he’s going to be making a jaunt to Sudan any time soon. And Bush has absolutely no leverage whatsoever with the Chinese. What if the Chinese tell Bush to get bent? What then? Does Bush threaten to cut off US trade with China? Threaten to intervene militarily in Sudan? Attack Chinese shipping and industries in Sudan’s ports? Sounds a bit risky to me.
Sixth, President Bush and Kofi Annan should jointly appoint a special envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks. Colin Powell or James Baker III would be ideal in working with the sheiks and other parties to hammer out a peace deal. The envoy would choose a Sudanese chief of staff like Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading Sudanese human rights activist who has been pushing just such a plan with the help of Human Rights First.
The Sudanese sheikhs don’t trust Westerners. They look back on decades and even centuries of exploitation at the hands of Europeans and Americans and remember it all. The Sudanese sheikhs might trust an African–might–but what would the African envoy have to offer them? Not only that, but unless the Sudanese government is brought into the process (and it’s NOT interested), the sheikhs are going to (correctly) conclude that the envoy has no power to enforce the brokered agreement. I suspect Kristof has only proposed this last bit to help interject American influence into oil-rich southern Sudan:
Sudan contains proven reserves of 563 million barrels of oil, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. Because much of Sudanese oil exploration has been limited to the central and south-central regions, Sudanese Energy Ministry representatives estimate proven reserves at 700 million barrels and total reserves at five billion barrels, including potential reserves in northwest Sudan , the Blue Nile Basin , and the Red Sea area in eastern Sudan . Oil production has risen steadily since the completion of an export pipeline in July 1999. Crude oil production averaged 343,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2004, up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. In December 2004, Sudanese Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz announced that oil production will likely increase to 500,000 bbl/d in 2005. Sudanese production may reach 750,000 bbl/d by late 2006 if increases in output progress as planned.
Exploration and development of Sudan ‘s oil resources has been highly controversial. International human rights organizations have accused the Sudanese government of financing human rights abuses with oil revenues, including the mass displacement of civilians near the oil fields. Factional fighting in the South and rebel attacks on oil infrastructure have kept oil production and exploration from reaching full potential to date. In October 2004, for example, the Sudanese government prevented a militia attempt to sabotage the country’s main oil export pipeline.
The recent peace agreement between the government and the SPLA will likely lead to substantial investment in both production facilities and new exploration initiatives in the country. In January 2005, after the official signing of the CPA, Total SA, Marathon Oil Corporation, and the Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Company renewed their exploration rights in southern Sudan .
Department of Energy Report on SudanCross-posted at MyLeftWing and The Blogging Curmudgeon
ON EDIT: I CORRECTED THE FIGURES ON THE NUMBER OF DEAD IN DARFUR TO REFLECT VARYING ASSERTIONS, WITH THE LOWEST PUBLISHED FIGURE BEING 30,000 AND THE HIGHEST BEING 300,000.
For saying MSOC is wrong to uncritically endorse Kristof’s “What the world needs now is more Western intervention in the Third Word” proposal…
But in case you are feeling charitable, this is the place to deposit your alms for the poor.
I think the world is getting weary of American interventions around the globe. I truly believe that any foreign interventions should take place under UN auspices unless there is a true national security crisis. Darfur is a terrible tragedy, but invading or bombing yet another Muslim nation would be the wrong move to make. This is a problem for the African Union. They should be assisted with funding if that is the hold-up, but they should be encouraged to take steps towards becoming a more effective organization.
The government of Sudan doesn’t want any further intervention–and what happened to the principle of respecting international sovereignty?
The US has bad motives for wishing to intervene in Darfur (which is atop a huge reservoir of untapped oil)–and liberals are playing straight into the neocon plan to grab at that oil. Kristof is NOT to be trusted.
I also doubt that in the court of world opinion that the US has much street cred when it comes to acting against genocide:
I do agree that something needs to happen, and think it’s good that the situation in Darfur is placed front and center. I just happen to think that any US involvement (or anything smelling of US involvement) would backfire.
Which is part of the point.
Destroying the Sudanese air force? Sending US troops or NATO troops into Darfur over the strenuous objections of its sovereign government?
I can see why a neocon propagandist like Nicolas Kristof would propose this–but why would anybody in the liberal blogosphere promote this plan?
It stinks to high heaven. I hope I’ve pointed out exactly why.
Why is the US becoming interested in the genocide of Dafur now?
Not because genocide is wrong–US policy routinely supports that which is wrong.
Because Dafur is part of the War for Oil, and enthusiasm for military intervention (to grab the oil, not to save those people) needs to be prepared.
Another con. Want to fall for it?
As Knoxville says, air-drop food and water if you care, but keep the troops out.
In the long haul, much more helpful than direct American intervention would be American support for and involvement with multinational and international bodies that are perhaps in a better position to deal with the Sudanese government.
If people are being maimed, raped, and killed trying to get to wells (as described in MSOC’s diary), it seems that a helpful suggestion might be airdrops of bottled water to internationally secured refugee facilities until a land route can be put into place.
If you disagree with Maryscott then respond at MLW. Attacking someone diary from another blog with out first pointing out your disagreements at their site or dairy is just wrong in my book
This is cross-posted at MyLeftWing, as I noted at the bottom of the diary.
Also, per Booman’s rules, I’ve not attacked another blogger without cross-posting on that blogger’s main site to give him/her a chance to respond.
I actually quite like and respect MaryScott–but I think she was a bit hasty in uncritically endorsing Nicolas Kristoff’s plan.
If I were able to post a longer diary title, it would be “Why MaryScott O’Connor Was Wrong to Uncritically Endorse the Plan to Take Over Sudan’s Oil Reserves (as authored by the devious neocon shill Nicolas Kristof).”
Doesn’t exactly “zing” though, does it?
And I wrote this diary with full expectation that MSOC loyalists would flail the skin off my bones for saying she’s wrong. But I call ’em as I see ’em.
you still should have responded to her dairy instead of doing this here or at MLW. IMO
MSOC crossposted “Wake the fuck up”! on several blogs including kos.
MLW, DKos and American Liberalism Project.
Last I checked, that’s a “few.”
: )
I appreciate you abiding by the rules. Actually, you can be critical of other bloggers here, I just don’t personal attacks. If you had said MSOC doesn’t know how to dress then I would have a problem. Saying she is wrong about something is perfectly fine.
And now I will step back and let MSOC do her own job of discussing Darfur.
Thanks, Booman.
Actually, I agree with MSOC 99% of the time–just not on this issue.
And I have no personal issue with MSOC–she’s actually my sort of person: she cares and throws herself headlong and passionately (not to mention fearlessly) into important issues.
on my pissy mood.
Yes, the lifelong battle with nicotine has been re-engaged. For the hundred and eleventh time.
Tought you quit long time ago. 🙂
…in the world. People have done it thousands of times.
Of course, starting smoking again is just as easy.
the amount of money at stake in situations such as this, and difficult for most of us to imagine committing crimes against humanity for any amount of money.
You do a serviceable job of shooting down each suggestion.
You offer NO suggestions of your own.
And I, for one, am sick to death of hearing people tell me why what I’VE suggested won’t work, but refuse to tell me what THEY think ought to be done.
In this case, it’s all Kristof — I just repeated his suggestions. Nevertheless, if you feel compelled to dismiss a man’s thoughftul suggestions about solving a goddamned humanitarian crisis of apocalyptic proportions, I submit that it is incumbent on YOU to propose ALTERNATE solutions.
I’m sick to death of being told what WON’T work.
…with respect, of course. I get your meaning. I’m just watching a whole fuck of a lot of people mutilated, tortured, killed, their children thrown screaming, alive, onto bonfires… and I’m SICK OF BEING TOLD WHY THEY CAN’T BE HELPED.
the misspelling of my name.
And it’s not 30,000.
It’s 300,000.
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
On DECEMBER 1st, 2004, the number was 70,000.
I REJECT YOUR SUGGESTIONS.
And I am done here.
I’m sorry you don’t wish to debate. I do hope you’ll reconsider.
As for the figures on deaths, they vary widely.
I should clarify:
The WHO (World Health Organization) has estimated 30,000-50,000 deaths (mostly by starvation) since the beginning of the conflict.
The United Nations reckons 180,000 deaths.
A British parliamentary report has calculated 300,000 deaths.
Another 350,000 or so are at “high risk” for death from starvation.
I would be equally concerned about Darfur if the actual number is 30,000 or 300,000. Death by starvation is particularly cruel and abhorrent.
However, these numbers cannot be calculated with any sort of accuracy. I tend to think the actual number is between 30,000 and 300,000, but nobody knows for certain. It’s not as if there’s a census bureau out there counting the bodies.
No, there is not a census bureau for the dead. But there are human rights organizations who are very good at estimating the casualties.
As for having patience, maybe we can afford it, we can be patient. But the people there can not.
In this country I learned that “when there is a will…”
As for the world reaction to an “invasion” of another country, I guaranty you that it will be applauded, just like Clinton was when he stopped the Kosovar genocide. And yes, Suddan wont like it, (tough for them) But I doubt that they will be able to rally to much support. SWpecially if you call the EU rapid Response army. Call the Nato. Call Latin American Armies. And if you still think this cannot be done, then just give those that are being persecuted some weapons. I am sure that they would rather die fighting than shot without even trying to defend themselves.
I feel that doing nothing is not an option.
Well, I’ve been doing some additional research and it seems that the most likely figure for the dead is 180,000.
The 300,000 dead figure being tossed about appears to be high.
But I would be just as alarmed if it was 30,000, 180,000, or 300,000. 3,000 people died in the US on 9/11 and everybody was up in arms. The lives of Africans are no less precious than the lives of Americans or Europeans. And most of the dead Sudanese are women and children who’ve died from hunger or thirst–cruel, horrible, lingering deaths.
We need to do something–and I’ve made suggestions about the slow, painful steps that we’ll need to take.
Unfortunately, the Africans don’t trust the Europeans because of centuries of colonial exploitation. The Americans have no credibility because Bush squandered every bit of it since 9/11/2001 with his naked imperialism.
One thing we may consider is strengthening some African nations that are more stable, such as South Africa, and encouraging them to take the lead in settling disputes within the continent.
Moving in unilaterally–which I call the John Wayne Solution–is just going to make things worse. The foreign troops will get killed, the bad government in Khartoum will get strengthened, and the life of the people in Darfur will not improve. Not only that, but there’s no nation in the world that has the troops and the political will to secure Darfur–it’d take 3-4 divisions of infantry or armoured troops trained in guerrilla warfare, which is 30,000-50,000 troops.
Who’s going to supply those troops? The only nation that has the available trained soldiers is France and it’s NOT interested.
The only answer is to strengthen the African Union troops as much as possible and give economic incentives to the Sudanese government in Khartoum to settle this nasty business.
All of this will require patience–diplomacy does require that. Look how many years it took to broker peace between Egypt and Israel, and Israel and the Palestinians (and the Israel-Palestinian process is ongoing). These problems took decades to create and may take decades to unsnarl.
Meanwhile, people are dying. We can definitely do airdrops of food and water to AU-secured distribution points. But large scale military intervention? It’ll have no good effects and many bad ones. I want to help, too–which is why how I’ve pointed out that Mr. Kristof’s plan will NOT help but will hurt the people of Darfur.
Are you sauing that we should be as patient as with Rwanda? It only took a couple of weeks for the attrocities to take place.
You are also assuming many things: that we ned troops. Clinton did not need any ground troops to dismember the Yugoslavians. Just a few planes. Will Suddan get pissed off if we blow their planes and destroy their fields? Who the hell cares! Is the American peop;e discredited in the eyes of the wolrd for their interventionism? I think Republicans and this administration are. Not the American people. They have seen what a good administration can do (Thank you Clinton).Unilateralism? Depends what you do. If you go there with the intention of sucking all their oil and natural resources, then yes it will give a negative image. But if we do it as in the Baltic area, just go in and stop the killing, the world will applaud you. You should remember that most of us have been there, we have had our shgare of genocide. And if not us direclty, then it was our neighbours.
What we can not afford is to sit by. As a matter of fact it could be much worse not to do anything, for the world might think: Sure it is not an European country, they don’t care about us, the third world, They wont do it because it is not profitable for them.
We should do the ritht thing. Now. Later it might be too late.
Sorry for misspelling your name. Now I know why people abbreviate it MSOC.
What I find objectionable about your response is that you haven’t bothered to say why you support each of Kristof’s six proposals with your own analysis.
In other words, prove me wrong.
The reason I didn’t post any suggestions of my own in the original body of this diary is that I didn’t wish to make the diary overlong.
The situation in Darfur is dreadfully complicated.
Actually, without the cooperation of the government of Sudan, not much more can be done except to strengthen the African Union troops already patrolling inside Darfur.
The AU doesn’t want to strengthen its forces and wants to hand things over to the UN.
The government of Sudan is 100% opposed to a UN-controlled force and will likely coordinate attacks on UN troops. The UN troops must operate within constraints that, for example, only allow them to fire on other troops when fired upon.
Not only that, but even if the UN were so bold as to send troops into Darfur, where are they going to get those troops? The United Nations doesn’t have an army. Its troops are drawn entirely from member countries. There are few nations in the world who have troops trained in counter-guerrilla warfare (the French and British armies being the two leaders in this particular area), and the French don’t want to contribute troops. The British cannot, as the British Army has committed its best troops to propping up the failing American occupation of Afghanistan. Any other troops, such as the Germans, Italians, etc, are hopelessly bad and would get themselves slaughtered. That’s why their governments aren’t going to volunteer them–not only that, but after the Iraq debacle, there is strong public sentiment in Europe AGAINST military intervention in Third World countries in general. No European government is going to risk the political firestorm that would come with committing massive military resources to an open-ended commitment in Darfur.
I fully expected that, in typical fashion, you and your supporters would blast back at me for daring to say you’re wrong to uncritically support Kristof. But everybody is wrong sometimes, and you are very wrong on this issue.
I already WROTE what I thought should be done. You disagree — fine.
YOU still haven’t said what YOU think ought to be done.
You didn’t say why you thought it should be done. You just reiterated Kristof’s neocon talking points without saying why you agreed.
And you’re a bit quick on the draw–I posted my own suggestions in a comment a bit above this one.
The Neocon Bill Kristol?
You keep using that word…
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I consider Kristof a neocon, yes, just a different species of neocon.
Kristof is a “neoliberal”–one who favours foreign military intervention in other countries.
Kristof may have opposed the invasion of Iraq, but now he is advocating what amounts to a unilateral invasion of the Sudan (including “bombing the shit out of their air force” as you put it MSOC)–and since this crisis has been going on for more than a decade, I find his sudden concern over the issue rather suspicious timing.
Bill Clinton is a “neoliberal”, too, and he bombed the holy hell out of a pharmaceutical plant in Africa that turned out to be, um, a pharmaceutical plant.
I’ll call Kristof a “neoliberal” if you like, instead of “neocon”. They are both imperialists any way you want to dress it up.
I would like for you, or someone, to explain to me why invading Sudan is not a violation of international sovereignty and invading Iraq was? Does this principle not matter?
And please don’t tell me that it’s different because “we” are invading Sudan “to save lives”–because Bush and the neocons (kissing cousins to the neoliberals) are claiming they invaded Iraq for “humanitarian” reasons–to stop Saddam from killing his own people (sound familiar?) and to “bring democracy” to the Iraqi people.
It’s all bullshit, of course. Now, do you think that the current US government–still headed by Bush and Cheney–are going to do good work in Sudan? Or invade with the intent of grabbing Sudan’s oil, under humanitarian pretences, and then just let the people starve, anyway? Because that’s what is going to happen, and Kristof is either knowingly collaborating with them or else unwittingly playing into their hands.
Either way, when the American troops move in, the Sudanese are going to have a hard time telling the neoliberals from the neocons. Both want to invade and occupy the oil-rich areas of Darfur. Both give the same reason (humanitarian intervention). I trust neither.
“I would like for you, or someone, to explain to me why invading Sudan is not a violation of international sovereignty…”
That is an easy one. Invading another country could be a violation of NATIONAL sovereignty, not international soverreignty. As a matter of fact you could argue that humanity is part of that international sovereignty you are talking about.
Not that this is important in the greater scheme of things, but can someone fix the links in this piece, in order to make it more readable? (And in whatever is messing up the front page too, if possible).
I don’t know how to do the “nerdified” links, Nanette.
I will happily edit the diary to put in such links if somebody will give me a quick tutorial.
Please don’t post it here, as it’s off-topic for the diary.
Charitable (and knowledgeable) folk send your help to the Luddite (aka me) at:
bloggingcurmudgeon@gmail.com
Thanks in advance for your help.
just put brackets around the
[ word you want to highlight then the URL you want linked ]
Thanks, I’ll give it a try to make this diary more readable.
Thanks. It looks like an interesting and important debate and this will help more people (including me) follow it, and possibly participate.
Sorry, I tried it in “edit” and it didn’t work. I tried several times with different links and it just showed up as text. I really shouldn’t be on any of the Internets with computer skills as hopeless as mine.
Have you turned on “AUTO FORMAT”?
We need a separate diary for this topic.
Suggested title: “Internets 101: Help the Blogging Curmudgeon Stop &&^%& Booman Tribune’s Appearance.”
I have emailed.
Thanks, Nanette!
It worked–hope this makes the diary more readable for others.
Wonderful! Thanks… now I can read it and see what all the fuss is about. And, of course comment, after all this ;).
I have no idea if Maryscott (or Kristof) is right or wrong, or if you are (there are seemingly good points on both sides)… I know that there are those who take advantage of people’s need and desire to DO SOMETHING about horrific situations, in order to advance their own agenda. We’ve definitely seen evidence of that, the last few years. I don’t follow Kristof, although I know he often highlights various human rights issues around the world, but I don’t know if the solutions he proposes are in the service of the people he is writing about or other interests.
Anyway tho, beyond all that… the Darfurians seem to have few real advocates anywhere… most likely as a result of having absolutely no power anywhere. They seem to be considered a disposable people, regardless of what this or that government says. Even in countries where those who have been lucky enough to escape land, from various news reports they appear to be often treated as the dregs of the dregs even in those societies.
Whether this is due to historical issues, religious issues, or to the fact that the people persecuting them in their home country hold all the oil cards, is difficult to say.
Rereading this, am not sure how much I’ve added to anything, as it’s all about how much I don’t know, but still… I think there are any number of us in the “I haven’t a clue what to do, but I want to do something substantive” camp and this diary might be a good starting place to try and figure out what.
I agree something should be done. Certainly UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is deeply concerned, as he should be.
But we must accept that there are LIMITS to American power, and this is one of those situations where our ability to do anything–frustrating as it is–is very limited.
Africans don’t trust Europeans or Americans.
The dispute in Darfur is the result of a civil war. A peace accord was brokered in 2004 but hasn’t fully worked.
Kristof’s motives in promoting US involvement now, after over a decade of crisis, are because of the recent discoveries of large petroleum reserves–which China is getting and the US is not.
Strong analysis here, thanks. I was recently reading Tactical Use of Genocide in Sudan and the Five Lakes Region, by John Bart Gerald which gives some good background of the history & geo-political dynamics at work today in Darfur.
I don’t now what the answers are when it seems like most interested parties have a vested interest in seeing the people of Darfur displaced. I suspect it will have to involve somehow stregthening the AU peacekeeping force. The question of who gets to develop the oil fields gets masked by cynical expressions of humanitarian concern. The author suggests that the rebel movements in Sudan have been covertly supported by the US/Israel, that the reaction of the Sudanese was predictable & indeed a desired outcome, which then allows for the introduction of UN/US military forces under the rubric of fighting the ‘good war’ — in this instance humanitarian intervention. The goal of a displaced population to enable resource exploitation then gets solidified by the forces wearing a public Knight-in-Shining-White-Armor facade. Similarly in Rwanda, “Was it a fluke of tribal war that became genocide? Or was it a carefully planned NATO operation that discounted African population loss?” Kristoff’s call for UN intervention can be seen as the logical move in this PR charade.
Henry Kissinger . . .
Here’s how it worked in southern Sudan:
Gerald concludes:
With such cynical, hypocritical actors, and an apprent lose-lose situation for the suffering people of Darfur, is it any wonder progressives are ripping into each other & are at a loss over ‘what’s best to do?’
I rather suspect that most liberals responded impulsively–of course we must do something about the suffering of these people!–without considering that they had, in fact, played straight into the hands of the neocons.
Where, for example, has Kristof been for the past decade? I find his recent concern on the issue to be highly suspicious, to say the least…it just HAPPENS to coincidence with the Chinese moving in to exploit the petroleum reserves of Sudan. Just a coincidence, nothing to see here.
You’re quite right, John Bart Gerald’s book provides a lot of very useful information on this issue.
when discussing this subject, I have perused all the various suggestions and not having good luck finding any that would appear to contain an incentive for China to forfeit Sudan’s oil.
I recognize that the same can be said for US oil-related operations in Africa and elsewhere, but US has some vulnerabilities that China does not have, and could be, and will be vanquished.
Chinese imperialists are no less fond than their American counterparts of the argument, “if we don’t seize it, then our arch-rival will.”
Who will vanquish China?
Aren’t the neo-cons but a sub-species of neo-liberals? Differing in how, not what? Including Clinton, whose admin was also deeply involved here, in their ranks, kind of confuses the distinction.
The tragedy is that there seems no way to clear all the smokescreens, short of, as Gerlad suggests, int’l accountability, which only comes after the fact & has yet to be given the teeth to be any sort of future deterrent. The consequences of doing are obvious; dropping food & water, and building roads enables more of the same. The AU has yet to prove effective, or to have the political will. Gerald makes pretty clear what UN intervention will mean.
It’s a funhouse of mirrors with deadly results.
that phrase should read:
The consequences of doing nothing are obvious . . .
(my apologies to all for the many typos & transpositions in my comments)
It transcends national borders. Its ideology is simple: make a profit.
All you say points to the need for an independent international body, owned by no nation, beholden to no nation, accountable only to the people.
This need is urgent, and it is anti-business.
The American president, Franklin Roosevelt once said, if it happens, you can be sure somebody planned it that way.
He could have added, and somebody made money.
No matter how horrific the atrocity, no matter how gory, how sadistic and cruel the crimes against humanity, somebody made money.
Gore, atrocity, cruelty are business, too.
intricacies of the Darfur situation and have the confidence [audacity] to think we have all the answers before we assist the people who are dying? There are front line workers in Darfur, like Medicins sans Frontieres and I trust them.
Yes.
Darfur is dreadfully complicated. History is littered with the tragic stories of situations caused by the arrogance of the West trying to “fix” Third World countries. Africa’s a mess today because of European imperialism.
I want to make the situation there better, not worse. That’s why I wanted to start this dialogue, because Kristof’s plan will make things worse.
I’m not in favour of turning a blind eye to the people of Darfur, but helping in a constructive and meaningful way.