"Mass execution" in western Sudan (BBC)

[gottaB]

Dramatic new allegations have been made about a massacre allegedly committed by pro-government forces in western Sudan.

New York-based group, Human Rights Watch says it has established that pro-government militias executed 136 men in a coordinated operation last month.

The allegation comes as the United Nations Human Rights Commission adopted a watered down statement on Darfur.


"Mass execution" in western Sudan....

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

1. I saw Mark Fiore's latest Flash cartoon on this yesterday...

on the Village Voice website. How come we're not taking down that "evil government" like we did to Iraq? :eyes:
The hypocricy of *'s policies still amazes me.

[maddezmom]

2. don't they have oil????

The world according to bush*: if a country has oil the US owes them a stable democracy. Look how well it's working in Iraq. :eyes:

[gottaB]

4. I don't buy that kind of argument

Peace in Sudan has never been a priority for US foreign policy--not like it should have been.

Powell had been pushing US policy towards Sudan. Bush has also felt pressure from anti-slavery groups, including Christian charities and missionaries. I believe that Bush is simply responding to his base in a way that's consitent with his beliefs, and doesn't entail any serious opposition domestically or abroad.

I don't doubt that the oil resources are on the table--of course they are. But that's not a sufficient cause here. The problem I have with that argument is that in today's world, you can look at almost any armed conflict and see that it also involves disputed claims to natural resources.

3 million dead in DRC. Must be columbite-tantalite. Mayhem in Liberia. It must be diamonds. Nigerian civil war. It must be oil. But are those really the causes? Is that the best explanation? I don't think so.

It's demonstrably the case that people kill for revenge, ethnic hatred, religious hatred, envy, flat out idiocy. The crude materialist will see those as merely tools of the demogogue. Well, yeah, I guess they are. All I'm saying is that ignorance is a powerful force in human affairs, as much of an organizing principal as any commonly understood structure of reciprocity.

[wickerwoman]

6. But the CIA has all but admitted that it sponsored the assassination of

Lumumba in the DRC.

Of course ignorance is a powerful force, but Ignorance's best chum is generally Apathy. Without Greed, Arrogance or Hatred, they usually stay home watching DVDs.

You make a good point that we shouldn't just to the conclusion that greed is the motivating factor (rather than hatred or revenge) but I think a.) the originally poster was being somewhat facetious and b.) the DRC isn't a great example of your point.

[gottaB]

7. The 3 million death toll reflects recent events

Though by some tallies 4 million would be more accurate.

http://www.womenwarpeace.org/drc/drc.htm

http://www.un.int/drcongo/enter

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/cod-040803-background_1-eng

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=congo

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=40655&SelectRegion=Great_Lakes&SelectCountry=DRC

Warning: The following website contains disturbing images:

http://www.nkolo-mboka.com/genocide_57.html

I'm not saying that the US doesn't have responsibilities in Central Africa, or that history doesn't inform the conflict, but I do argue that recent atrocities have culprits and causes that are more immediate.

As for the true intention of the poster I'm replying to, it's kind of moot because I'm basically responding to a kind of argument that's very common, e.g. the BBC's Barnaby Mason in his analysis, Why the US wants Sudan peace, proffers interest in oil, and one might assume by extension, oil wealth, as an explanation for recent US interest in peace. Sure, the oil fields are on the table. But as a causus pax (ouch--help, I don't do latin), I'm saying that's too pat.

Thus the example of Coltan in DRC. Certainly, if you want to condemn profiteering and wanton pillaging, I'll join you. That doesn't explain the conflict.

But I'm not going to play cherchez l'huile with everything the man* from Crawford touches because the world is more complicated than that, it deserves our attention, and there are terrible consequences to ignoring or completely misunderstanding violence.

[wickerwoman]

8. I think it's causus belli (cause of war)

rather than causus pax (cause of peace) but I'm probably declining causus wrong. It's been a few years. :-)

I won't pretend that I know that much about the current situation in central Africa. I'll take a look at the links and think it over.

I'd like to start a "How invading Iraq helps us get their oil" for Dummies thread when I have more time. My centrist family always asks me this when I'm condemning the war in Iraq (their position is- it must be about WMD, why else would we invade?) and I haven't studied enough economics or poli sci to come up with a convincing layman's explanation.

[gottaB]

9. it's an odd joke to make, causus pax

or whatever. I've been mulling it over, and it seems like there's a natural assumption that peace is both desirable and just.

You know how in satires like Kubrick movies or Brecht plays, the prospect of peace emerges as something that requires justification? Why is that funny? Is it the rampant deciet, the impulse to destroy the truth, even obvious truths?

Well, one needn't be too idealistic about peace. Perhaps the acceptance of peace derives from laziness and apathy. Hmmm.

[mobuto]

3. Because we're tired of swatting at flies

We attacked terror facilities in Sudan in 1998, but Bush has decided that we're not going to swat at flies. So instead we're doing nothing.

[porkrind]

5. Depressing. Heartbreaking. This is too common in our world.

Chomsky explains it well. This is a very important article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

... The weaker and poorer a country is, the more dangerous it is as an example. ...

... In other words, what the US wants is "stability," meaning security for the "upper classes and large foreign enterprises." If that can be achieved with formal democratic devices, OK. If not, the "threat to stability" posed by a good example has to be destroyed before the virus infects others. ...

... That's why even the tiniest speck poses such a threat, and may have to be crushed. ...

... To be sure, the use of force to control the Third World is only a last resort. The IMF is a more cost-effective instrument than the Marines and the CIA if it can do the job. But the "iron fist" must be poised in the background, available when needed. ...