US can help end Darfur genocide

[gottaB]

The time is long overdue, but not too late, to stop the active genocide in Sudan. What can we do as Americans?

The Darfur region of Sudan is in flames. For nearly two years cynical leaders in Khartoum have been seeking to enhance their power by using the country's armed forces and local militia to suppress the local non-Arab population. They have driven a million and a half people from their homes, holding them in concentration camps and denying them access to adequate food, water, and shelter. More than 30,000 have been killed, and a range of crimes against humanity have been committed, including the mass rape of women and the systematic destruction of villages, livestock, and crops.

If nothing is done, US officials predict that 350,000 people could be dead of starvation, disease, or murder by the end of this year.

Does all this sound familiar? Yes -- it also happened in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo. An international convention drafted in 1948 after the Holocaust and ratified by the United States and other countries commits the world "to undertake to prevent" the crime of genocide. Shamefully, in Rwanda that commitment rang hollow in 1994 when 800,000 people were slaughtered in less than three months. In Bosnia and Kosovo the lesson of Rwanda was remembered, although too late for many victims. Intensive diplomatic and military efforts were organized within a UN framework by the United States and other countries in 1995 and 1999. These efforts saved hundreds of thousands of lives and established under international law a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention to stop a genocide in progress.

US can help end Darfur genocide....

[reorg]

1. more war propaganda

You never tire, do you?

The "suppression of the local non-Arab population" is in fact the result of the suppression of an armed insurgency in the province of Darfur by two groups, the SLA (Sudan Liberation Army), and the JEM (Justice and Equality Movement), which -- supported by Islamists (al-Turabi) in opposition to the central government -- raised their arms when they felt that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the peace accord between central government and southern insurgents (SPLA) ending a 20-year long civil war.

The alleged "genocide" was carried out not by the government, but by the "Janjaweed militia", a seemingly uncontrollable group of gangsters and war profiteers that allegedly were armed by the central government (which of course denies the allegation) and raped, killed and pillaged the villages of Darfur.

The number of 30000 being killed in this "genocide" is an estimate, naturally there are lower estimates which put the number at about the same level as the number of civilians being killed by US troops in Iraq within roughly the same time period: 10000. Bad enough.

UN spokespersons have denied, however, that it would do any good if the US or the Europeans send troops. They claim that medicine and food should be made available to the masses of refugees instead, so as to avoid the real humanitarian catastrophe that may be imminent if no aid arrives.

[gottaB]

3. On the contrary, some debates I do find tiresome.

1. If, as you argue, the depradations in Darfur are the result of the "suppression of an armed insurgency," then what sense does it make to deny the fact that the government of the Sudan has backed the Janjaweed? If fact the government is backing the Janjaweed, and they are committing gross violations of human rights.

And what about the LRA (Lord's Resistence Army), which the government of Sudan has admitted to supporting? What sense does it make to say that their support of the Janjaweed is merely an allegation, when they have supported vicious war criminals like Joseph Kony?

Are the SLA or the JEM responsible for ethnic cleansing or anything resembling it? Do you have credible sources that document their war crimes?


2. Estimates. There are, as well, higher estimates of the number of deaths.


3. The UN is a great source of news and opinions. For instance:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11293&Cr=sudan&Cr1=

[reorg]

4. un sources

well, thanks for quoting back to me the article on Jean Ziegler, which I linked in another thread to support my argument that humanitarian aid is needed instead of military intervention.

See also:

SUDAN: Senior UN envoy to monitor progress on Darfur
NAIROBI, 15 Jul 2004 (IRIN)

...

Briefing reporters in New York, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland said his worst fear was that the insecurity would continue to worsen and possibly force aid agencies to withdraw staff for their own safety.

"Our trucks are looted, our humanitarian workers are threatened and attacked, and that's not necessarily only the fault of the government. There are many militias and other forces" in the region, he said.

Egeland said the Sudanese government had generally improved humanitarian access to Darfur by lifting obstacles, as it had promised to do in the communiqué signed after talks between Annan and senior government ministers.

...

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=42194&SelectRegion=East_Africa&SelectCountry=SUDAN

[gottaB]

6. but that article doesn't support your argument

It's not an either/or situation. Civilians in Darfur are in need of protection. Aid workers are in need of protection. Food and medicine are in need of protection.

As for who's responsible, let me ask you this: If a food riot breaks out in a town in Chad that has taken in many refugees, and in the course of the rioting several people are trampled to death, do the people who commanded the destruction of the refugees' food stocks and homes bear any responsibility for those deaths? Or is it your position that once a government cleanses an area of hated groups, it may wash its hands of the whole affair?

[reorg]

9. sure it does

when Egeland says that

"There are many militias and other forces" in the region"

it supports my argument that the self-righteous moralizing of US citizens (of all people ...) against so-called "ethnic cleansing" may be a bit one-sided, since there are also other forces involved in this civil war, aided and abettet by a certain foreign country.

Your point that aid workers need protection is certainly true, but Egeland has expressed hope that this is achievable given certain reassurances by the government.

Also:

"Egypt may Send Darfur Observers

CAIRO, July 15 (AFP) - Egypt said Thursday it may seek to send observers to join the African Union-led mission monitoring a truce between the Sudanese government and rebel groups in Sudan's war-torn western Darfur region."
(...)
http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/9066.html


And a further transport route has been opened:

"WFP (UN World Food Programme) agrees new trans-Sahara aid route with Libya
DAKAR, 15 Jul 2004 (IRIN)

... the trans-Sahara route would eventually enable WFP to transport an extra 3,000 tonnes of food per month to the 1.2 million displaced people displaced by fighting in Darfur and 175,000 refugees of the conflict who have fled to eastern Chad.

Caras stressed that the new route would be particularly useful during the four-month rainy season from June to September, during which many dirt roads in the Savannah region of the Sahel become impassible, hindering aid flows into the remote region from Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast and the Cameroonian port of Douala.

"The new corridor will allow us to reduce pressure on the other transport routes and send aid into areas that would otherwise not be accessible during the rainy season," he said. "With the assistance agreed by the Libyan government, this corridor has become competitive in terms of price and time."
(...)"

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=42214&SelectRegion=East_Africa,%20West_Africa&SelectCountry=CHAD-SUDAN

[reorg]

5. egelund: all sides involved ... definitely also rebel forces

Interview with UN's Jan Egeland on the situation in Darfur

KHARTOUM, 5 Jul 2004 (IRIN) - Jan Egeland, the United Nations

...

I believe that all sides are involved - the so-called Janjawid militias, organised criminals, too many unemployed men with too many guns, government forces and definitely also rebel forces.

...

The Janjawid is a kind of paramilitary group which, little by little, became a monster that nobody seems to be able to control.

...

(on donor reluctance)

I see some countries coming with one big declaration after another that it is unacceptable what is happening. And then they have given 2 percent of or 1 percent of the pledges so far and no logistical hardware. I am surprised at the discrepancy between the rhetoric and what they are actually giving.

...

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=41994&SelectRegion=East_Africa

[gottaB]

7. interesting how easily you skip over the parts about aerial bombardment

eom

[reorg]

10. that is your topic

isn't it your secret hope that in a "humanitarian" intervention a la Kosovo humanitarian bombs will be dropped on the terror state of Sudan?

The Sudanese government is learning quickly, they label their insurgents also "terrorists", like the US forces in Iraq who shoot at civilians in Fallujah. The Sudanese government thinks it is totally justified to drop mediocre bombs on supposed "rebel hideouts". Disgusting. But they are not alone.

I wonder where I have seen this lately ... right, there was this video on the internet, showing the bombing of mosques and fleeing civilians in Afghanistan, possibly a wedding. Did you see that too?




ed. typo

[gottaB]

11. isn't it your secret hope that a million will die this year in Sudan?

That is your topic

[reorg]

12. refugees need food, water, and medicine, not more bombs

It deeply concerns me that countries that hope to profit from this conflict in Sudan by entering into favorable agreements with war parties are loath to provide already promised food and medicine for 1 million refugees that heavily depend on outside support.

UN's Jan Egeland on the situation in Darfur: "Our appeal is to donors to really come with their contributions, to physically give us helicopters so that we do not have to purchase or to rent these very expensive tools. There are many Western and Eastern European countries who could give them to us tomorrow, and I am surprised that many countries produce many more resolutions and declarations than actual hardware for our operation. ... I see some countries coming with one big declaration after another that it is unacceptable what is happening. And then they have given 2 percent of or 1 percent of the pledges so far and no logistical hardware. I am surprised at the discrepancy between the rhetoric and what they are actually giving. ..."


And I find it appalling that the only realistic alternative to the current catastrophe of a US administration is now loudly joining the chorus of war chants.

So it is not enough to call for MORE troops in Iraq, to threaten that Venezuela will have to become party to the US directed war against the FARC guerilla in Colombia, no, since the oil of East Africa is also needed, it is now deemed opportune to pose as a humanitarian hawk in Africa.

Where were you, Mr. Kerry, when your democratic predecessor bombed the only medicinal plant in Sudan, out of a whim and, oops, due to faulty intelligence, as they say? What was your comment then, about the plight of the poor and hungry? And what is your comment now, to the UN's Mr. Egelund's complaints?



US Democratic Nominee, Kerry calls for intervention in Sudan

Washington, DC, Jul. 15 (UPI) - Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry called for an international humanitarian intervention in the Sudan in a speech to the NAACP Thursday.

Kerry called the campaign against Sudan's black population at the hands of ethnic Arab militias genocide. He also called on the White House to stop equivocating and demand the Sudanese government take action against the militias.

Armed Arab militiamen known as janjaweed have killed thousands of black Sudanese in the Darfur region of western Sudan, and driven more than 1 million people from their homes over the last year, the Council on Foreign Relations has said.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Sudanese officials on his trip in early July the U.N. Security Council could act against them if they did not immediately stem the violence and bring about dramatic improvements on the ground right now.

A humanitarian intervention is a military action taken to protect innocent lives. Kerry did not specify what role he envisioned for U.S. forces in an international intervention team.

http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/9073.html

[gottaB]

13. Look, everybody "seems" to agree that security is a need

And bombs are not providing that. Yet one agent in this conflict has a history of bombarding civilians. Hmmm.

If Bashir's government is willing and able to disarm the militias, great. I sincerely hope that the redeployment of police forces to Darfur will successfully put an end to the attacks against the refugees. I hope that the truce with rebel groups holds up, that the AU is successful in its mission, and that any military intervention beyond the 300 AU peacekeepers proves to be unnecessary. But, with so many lives in the balance, and a history on the part of Sudan's government of using hunger as a weapon against entire populations, and delaying and harrassing aid shipments, it would be unethical to simply take Bashir's word on this.

Now, on this issue of not providing enough food and medicine:

(a) You don't need to tell me about the need. I have been posting about this for months, and I have in the Activism forum a thread with many charities listed so that people can easily donate online.

(b) Is the US government being stingy? Egeland says the US and UK are the biggest donors. Egeland's criticism doesn't seem to be meant for the United States, and yet you and the Sudanese Ambassadors find it a fitting argument to offer in discussions of US policy. That to me fits a pattern of selectively misapplying facts, like citing Justice Africa to argue that rebel groups are committing human rights abuses, but calling Justice Africa "spies" and totally ignoring their discussion of genocide, or citing an aging Human Rights Watch report on the role of oil in the Sudan conflict, but rejecting their reports of ethnic cleansing in Darfur and dismissing all such talk as "propoganda."

(c)In the interview with Egeland you like to cite, the interviewer asked "Are donors reluctant to finance a crisis that has been created by a government and its allied militias?" Egeland said he didn't think so, then he said "maybe" and then he talked about donor fatigue. Let's rewind. Maybe. Hell yes, maybe. It's a bloody outrage, and I say this as a private citizen looking to see how much money I can donate this month. I feel like these people are being held hostage by the government of Sudan, who, on a whim it seems, can decide to hold up a food convoy or bombard an encampment of refugees.

[reorg]

14. big donors, they come through with just 1 % of pledge

and significant voices are calling for an intervention

a la Kosovo.

So you are not calling for a bombing raid a la Kosovo?

Good. I was under the impression you were, given the articles you quoted without distancing yourself.

I quoted to you a credible report, or reference to it, of human rights abuses carried out by the insurgent groups in Darfur who started this particular civil war in Darfur. You don't seem to like that, calling it "misapplying facts" ... well ... You asked for an example, I gave it to you.

You say the government of Sudan is bombing refugee camps? Can you please cite a source for that, or is this what you imagine COULD happen, is it pure propaganda again?

And do you have documentation on when and where a food convoy was held up by the government of Sudan, and the reasons given for this? Thank you.

[gottaB]

17. Points of info

A. Reports of refugee camps bombed:

One reported by the SLA: http://www.ushmm.org/newsfeed/darfur/viewstory.php?storyid=374

One reported by the Sudan Catholic Information Office: http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/dbd7df96f70a9089c1256abe00398edb?OpenDocument

Oh, let's go way back to 1993 for this report from Human Rights Watch:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/sudan/

You will no doubt be pleased to learn that hrw condemned human rights abuses by rebel groups. But alas, it also documented the government of Sudan bombing refugees in a camp, as well as bombing civilians out in the open, just running for their lives. Here's one passage.

The Sudan government took Pochalla on March 9, 1992, after several unsuccessful attempts which included indiscriminately bombing a camp for repatriatees. After moving from Pochalla to Pibor Post, the government troops killed civilians, burned huts, and looted cattle in outlying villages.

Oh, but that report covered the south. Has the Government of Sudan played nice in Darfur? Not according to hrw.

The bombing forced many people to leave their villages and move into the wadis, the tree-lined riverbeds where people use hand-dug wells to access water under the riverbeds. Even in the wadis, they were continually targeted by air and by ground attacks--indeed, government bombing appears to have specifically targeted the wadis, where people and their livestock are forced to come for water and shelter, given the sparse vegetation and scorching temperatures of the region.

Darfur in Flames: Bombing of Civilians in North Darfur

Excuse me for a moment, but are you trying to draw sharp moral distinction between aerial bombing refugees on the one hand, and, on the other hand, aerially bombing civilians and sending in militiamen on horseback or camel to chase down the survivors and finish them off? Because if you believe the latter is the actual pattern of bombing civilians in Darfur, I would agree with you, although I believe the former is also in evidence and totally consistent with what Amnesty International calls the "deliberate and indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Darfur."

B. Food Aid. There have been all kinds of obstacles and delays, from Port Sudan to requiring travel visas, and then restricting travel. Yes, there are reasons given. Whatever.

C. What's with the obsession over Kosovo? In my view it was a just intervention to prevent an ethnic cleansing. Are you an apologist for Milosevich in particular, and that's what bugs you, or do you just have a soft-spot for mass murderers?

In any case, the prinicple that the editorialist pointed to was not bombardent--there are much better examples of bombardment--but international military intervention to prevent a genocide. That means doing whatever is necessary to protect civilians in Darfur. No more, no less.

As for my view, I think we, the United States, should prepare for military intervention in case everything else fails. It has to be on the table, as time is running out. Our objective should be to save the lives of the displaced, nothing more, nothing less.

D. My criticism of course is not that you cited the Justice Africa report. It's a great report which I have linked to several times at DU. My criticism is that you ignore everything that doesn't support your opinion, which is bias, understandable, and then you badmouth the source, which is like poisoning the well in rhetorical terms. Poisoning the well is not an honest debating tactic. If you want to use hrw and Justice Africa reports as sources, you ought to extend that same courtesy to others without decrying their conclusions (that the government of Sudan is committing genocide or ethnic cleansing) as shameful war propaganda.

[reorg]

16. never cited or rejected "an aging HRW report"

Please do not misrepresent what I write. Thanks.

The "role of oil in the conflict" I found documented in the report of the CSIS Task Force on Sudan. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), established in 1962, is a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues.

Your favorite Sudan analyst, Mr. Fowler of the Holocaust Museum, was apparently a member of this Task Force, advising your current administration. The report is some 3 years old, and apparently the basis for the administration's current policy in Sudan.

The term "ethnic cleansing" is rejected by Egeland, he says that what he saw rather amounts to "scorched earth tactics" (carried out by the militia, not the government; it seems unclear as to what extent the government is able to control this militia, according to Egeland).

But this will certainly not stop you to continue with such terms, since they have this inflammatory, a-la-Kosovo effect.

[gottaB]

18. In a previous thread, you cited the following report from hrw

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/

Actually, your link to the report didn't work (for me at least), although your link to the map from the report worked.

This is the thread in which we participated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1978289#1980225

Btw, in that thread, I answered your point about using Egeland as a source for whether to describe the conflict as "ethnic cleansing."

[reorg]

19. never cited or commented on hrw report

but you are correct with the faulty link: the ".htm" extension was lost somehow.

I just linked to the map of oil concessions (which seems to be an appendix to a hrw report) to demonstrate that there IS some material interest at stake. Here is the corrected link:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/2.htm

[gottaB]

20. Perhaps it is an issue of English not being your first language then

One definition of the verb "cite" is, according to Webster's, "to refer to or specify, as for support, proof, illustration, or confirmation." And another is "to quote; to repeat, as a passage from a book, or the words of another." The American Heritage Dictionary offers "to mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof."

If you wish to say that you linked to a page from a Human Rights Watch report to demonstrate your point, but did not "cite" it, that is of course your prerogative. It does not represent a common understanding of the meaning of the word "cite."

[reorg]

21. stick to the point

namely that I replied to your accusation that (I was engaging in):

>... a pattern of selectively misapplying facts, like citing Justice Africa to argue that rebel groups are committing human rights abuses, but calling Justice Africa "spies" and totally ignoring their discussion of genocide, or citing an aging Human Rights Watch report on the role of oil in the Sudan conflict, but rejecting their reports of ethnic cleansing in Darfur and dismissing all such talk as "propoganda."<


Yes, I believe linking to a map of oil concessions does not constitute the "citing" of a report to which it is an appendix or whatever. The map's content is more or less identical with that of other maps I have linked to in another thread.

But more to the point: Linking to a map of oil concessions does certainly not constitute a ... "selective" ... "misapplication" ... of facts. When all I'm doing is try and educate some people here that oil is being pumped in Sudan, for crying out loud!

And no, I am not obligated to take a stance on certain views by groups and organisations or individuals when linking to a map they use.

I never cited or commented on or rejected a HRW report here. Maybe when I find time to read this "aging" report I will.


And no, I am not obligated to take a stance when citing a single paragraph in order to prove a point.

I selected one paragraph out of a lengthy newsletter from Justice Africa, showing that these obviously well informed spies (meant as a compliment, in case you missed it) know of instances of human rights abuses by rebel groups. You had asked for a source on that, I cited the source.

So quit with the nitpicking already.

[gottaB]

22. Sure. The point is that your defintion of "propaganda" is inconsistent

Inconsistent with your own use of information, inconsistent with commonly understood definitions.

It would seem, therefore, that you dismiss as propaganda any opinion or fact that doesn't support your preferred outlook.

I offered John Shattuck's opinion specifically because he adressed partisan political differences as an obstacle to achieving progress on this issue. In that sense, I would question whether your initial response was genuinely appropriate.

Clearly you object to calls for military intervention. That would be a point of view I would gladly debate. However, you have not invited proportion or honesty into your condemnations of military intervention. Nor have you recognized meaningful distinctions between institutions such as the JFK Library Foundation, the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Human Rights Watch on the one hand, and the Office of the President of the United States, the State Department, or the National Security Council on the other. There are indeed think tanks that greatly influence the current administration's foreign policy. PNAC springs to mind. You would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the JFK Library Foundation has a direct and powerful influence on the direction of the Bush* administration's foreign policy.

In short, I find your objections to be neither credible, reasonable, nor useful. It has occurred to me that you have been deliberately obfuscating matters. Although I have speculated as to what might motivate a person to obfuscate matters in the particular way that you do, the truth is I really don't know, and to pursue it further at this juncture would indeed be tiresome.

[reorg]

15. minor correction

I guess it was a "pharmaceutical plant" that Clinton bombed to smithereens, not just a "medicinal plant". I'm sorry, my first language is not English.

I recall that Noam Chomsky reported the claim that the plant in Al Shifa was Sudan's principal source of anti-malaria and veterinary drugs, and its destruction is alleged to have caused thousands of otherwise preventible deaths during the malaria epidemic that hit the country in 1999.

[reorg]

8. interesting

The WSW claim that the US administration "has recently encouraged the SLA in Darfur by suggesting that the southern peace agreement is 'transferrable onto this western problem".

That would seem logical and explain the current humanitarian drive.

17 May 2004
Brian Smith
(...)
Darfur is approximately the size of France, and whilst its oil reserves do not compare to those in the south of Sudan it is rich in minerals. The north of the region is known to contain large deposits of uranium and heavy metals, and the south has copper and oil. This mineral potential is clearly a major factor in Khartoum’s refusal to allow any prospect of secession. It also sheds light on Western governments’ interest in Darfur. The West, however, is much more interested in the north-south peace deal.

The US administration has historically backed the southern Christian rebels of the SPLA against the Muslim fundamentalist government in Khartoum. It has recently encouraged the SLA in Darfur by suggesting that the southern peace agreement is “transferable onto this western problem.” Meanwhile Garang has reportedly been giving military support to the SLA.
(...)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/suda-m17.shtml


And I found from "Justice Africa" (obviously very well informed spies):

PROSPECTS FOR PEACE IN SUDAN BRIEFING
MARCH-MAY 2004
Justice Africa
19 May 2004

(...)
"The Arabs of Darfur have their defenders. Members of these communities make a number of claims. First, they have argued that they too have been the victims of human rights violations, including massacres, at the hands of the SLA and JEM. Certainly there are credible allegations of such abuses, some of them reported in documents by Human Rights Watch and the UNHCHR, that warrant further investigation. Second, they claim that the war was started by the military insurrection of the rebels. This is not in dispute, but it is also not questioned that Darfur has long been neglected by central government (and indeed that the Darfurian Arabs were as much victims of that neglect as the non-Arabs). Furthermore, they argue that minorities in Darfur have suffered at the hands of the SLA and JEM, which are dominated by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. This claim also warrants investigation. There are more than forty ethnic groups in Darfur. There has been very little attention to the plight of those that are neither members of the Arab confederacy nor the big three of Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. These groups include the Berti of eastern Darfur (who have a tradition of political quiescence), the Meidob of north-east Darfur (camel herders with livelihoods similar to the Zaghawa), numerous farming groups scattered through the central belt including Daju, Gimir, Tunjur and Fellata communities of West African origin, and smaller groups in the south historically associated with the Fertit of western Bahr el Ghazal."
(...)

http://www.justiceafrica.org/bulletin.htm

[reorg]

2. Sudan rebels say troops must leave Darfur before political talks

Sudan rebels say troops must leave Darfur before political talks

ADDIS ABABA, July 15 (AFP) - Two rebel groups from Sudan's Darfur region insisted on Thursday that the Khartoum government withdraw its armed forces and allied militia from the troubled western region before there could be negotiations on ending the devastating conflict there.

...

The AU had billed the meeting as "political talks" aimed at ending a 17-month conflict that has killed more than 10,000 people, displaced over a million and spawned what the United Nations has termed the world's worst current humanitarian crisis.

...

The crisis threatens to derail a separate peace process between Khartoum and a southern rebel group called the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement, which has been fighting the government since 1983. After years of talks, these negotiations are nearing a comprehensive accord.

...

After both sides had their say, the AU presented reports from its nascent Darfur ceasefire commission and observer mission, which is to be bolstered by a 300-strong armed protection force by the end of July.

...

http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/9062.html