EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sudan's 'Last Chance'
Time For Dithering Is Over
Sudan has one "last chance" to follow U.N. directives, President Bush said Wednesday. That kind of tough talk preceded Bush's invasion of Iraq and the nightmarish quagmire that has resulted.But this ultimatum - if it is an ultimatum - isn't backed by the threat of a reckless invasion. At best, it would precede stronger economic sanctions. That is a modest response to the Sudan's crimes against humanity.
At the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Wednesday, President Bush issued some of his strongest words to date on the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region: "The brutal treatment of innocent civilians in Darfur is unacceptable - it is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to Americans, it's unacceptable to the United Nations."
If the U.N. secretary general can't persuade Sudan to honor its promises - including a modest force of 3,000 U.N. peacekeepers - Bush said he would impose tougher economic sanctions on Sudan. The president said he would also seek a broader arms embargo and a no-fly zone over Darfur.
Since 2003, at least 400,000 Darfurians and perhaps as many as 500,000 have died - from violence, starvation and disease - in a genocidal war against non-Arab tribes. The Sudan government-backed Janjaweed militia has engaged in systematic rape and killing, and an estimated 2.5 million people are refugees.
The world has slumbered through much of the genocide, but in August, the United Nations approved a peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Until recently, Sudan has repeatedly rejected the idea, arguing that such a force would compromise its sovereignty. As if its sovereignty deserved respect.
Sudan's government and its proxies have worked to harass and obstruct humanitarian relief workers. If the aid is blocked, the suffering will skyrocket.
So far, Sudan has allowed only 7,000 African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, which is the size of Texas. That force can't even monitor the carnage, let alone prevent it.
Just this week, however, Sudan said it would accept a small U.N. peacekeeping force. That ostensibly good news was tempered by Sudan's atrocious record, which was highlighted by a secret U.N. report just leaked to The New York Times. The report alleges that Sudan has been flying military equipment into Darfur in violation of U.N. demands. It also reports that Sudan has been painting its military aircraft to look like U.N. planes.
All of this suggests dim prospects for genuine cooperation from Sudan, which has been largely indifferent to world opinion. Sudan has oil, and it has paying customers in China and Russia, both of which profit by ignoring the genocide, and both of which have vowed to veto stiffer U.N. sanctions.
President Bush's visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum came during Holocaust Awareness Week and coincides with rising public concern about Darfur. Universities and states nationwide, including Colorado and its premiere university, have divested from companies doing business in Sudan.
The president has condemned Sudan previously but so far has not followed his strong language with commensurate action.
"Our experience is that the president's actions have not kept pace with his words," David C. Rubenstein, executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition, told the Washington Post. "We are counting on the president to do what he can to end the crisis."
So are the desperate and dying in Darfur. Clint Talbott, for the editorial board.
© 2007 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

10 Comments so far
Show AllIt is disappointing that commondreams continues to spread the already widespread 'save darfur' disinformation. The Darfur conflict continues to be mischaracterized, grossly oversimplified and distorted. To give just one example, the recently murdered aid workers were probably killed by rebels not the government or militia.
John Negroponte is hopefully familiar to readers of these pages. Yes, the US Ambassador who guided the Contras and secured their safe-haven in Honduras during the 80's. Yes, the Ambassador to Iraq under whose watch the Salvador option (death squads) conincidentally commenced. Take a guess what he has in mind for Chad and Darfur.
To get an idea of Darfur complexity read Alex De Waal.
To read an excellent critical overview read Mamdani's "The Politics of Naming ...."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html
A good recent article is by Robert Menard and Stephen Smith "Darfur needs peace not peacekeepers". Easily found on the web.
Progressives need to start critically questioning the 'save darfur' campaign.
Excellent. An awesomely informative researched writing by Mamdani.
Having spent a year in Iraq, It didn't take me long to see metaphor of contra phenomena operating in Iraq. In fact, people of Iraq this includes Kurds, Shiite and Sunnis confirm reasonable portion of the bombings are done by mercenaries formally known as "foreign intelligence." This by no means indicates that revenge killing between the sects does not go on.
Not too long ago, three of my relatives were kidnapped, be headed and be-limbed. It is said that the perpetrators were members of the Al Mehdi army. I highly doubt that account. After all these were Kurds current commercial partner to the Iraqi Kurdistan is the government of Iran.
I do not see how killing of Kurds would benefit the other side. I have other relatives, whose properties and businesses were taken by aggressing forces in and around Baghdad. Again, the Al Mehdi Army is blamed for it.
Mr. Charbaghi over at the Iranian Mission errs on the side of mercenaries responsible for much of the pandemonium going on in and around Baghdad.
I like to return to Iraq as a free lance journalist to seek out As Sadr. I like to get the scoop on his group activities. According to Charbaghi, As Sadr and Hakim are opposing the occupation. They want Iraq free from adverse influences by the US and its allies.
The Darfur/Sudan issue has a number of problems:
1. In my home town anyway, the whole Darfur campaign is rather peculiarly run by synagogues - the same ones that displayed the "stand with Isreal" in support of their horrible violence in Lebanon.
2. The Darfur activists organized by the Synagogues are very selective in their indignancy. When I encountered several busloads of "save Darfur" demonstrators at a turnpike service plaza, virtually none of them were involved in any other kind of humanitarian, or especially anti-war, activism. As someone involved in antiwar activities, I saw no familiar faces. None I talked to had even heard of the massive Sept. '05 antiwar demonstration in DC (18 buses went to it from Pittsburgh) just a month earlier, and most appeared to disagree with the antiwar movement.
3. In country with such marginal governance and fractious factionalism as the Sudan, it may very well be that the Sudanese government cannot do very much about the janjawid gangs anyway. They insist the gangs have no connection with the Sudanese government.
4. And, the USA has absolutely zero credibility to lead any intervention or be involved with it in any way.
5. This article strangely fails to mention positive developments like this: http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN823726.html
In light of of the above, I agree with rsterling1 that the "save Darfur" campaign is a bit suspect.
Thankyou RSterling and PJ for your informative comments about the situation in Darfur.There's alot of misinformation and outright lies about the civil war,famine,drought and disease ravaged Darfur region of Sudan.There are certain Jewish pro-Israel groups who have an interest in overthrowing the Islamic government of Sudan.These wealthy groups also don't like Iran,Somalia,or anyother Islamic government.For many years the US and Israel have been supporting rebel groups in Sudan who are fighting against the Sudanese government.We definitely have to examine the real motives behind the 'Save Darfur' campaign.
Thanks for good comments to a nasty propaganda article!
The complexity of Sudan goes back to Somalia 1993 and the Rwanda genocide 1994. In 1993, the new Clinton administration designated Sudan as enemy state (briefly mentioned in S. Huntington's 1996 book Clash of Civilizations p.39). Then the debacle in Somalia with killed US soldiers 'happened' (a documentary hints there are open questions about whether this was instigated by someone interested).
With the subsequent withdrawal of US troops from Africa, the military involvement of that Clinton group became invisible. The Rwanda genocide was orchestrated by an international network allegedly under leadership of Madeleine Albright, then UN ambassador. The exile Tutsi from Uganda under Paul Kagame took power again in Kigali, as ethnic minority that had ruled in pre-/colonial times and would not have had a chance to win an election. The Congo became subjected to their influence with the installing of Laurent Kabila, 'replaced' through murder in 2001 by his adopted son Joseph. The Rwandan genocider/president Kagame insisted on BBC TV last december he still has essential 'influence' over the Congo government leadership. The strategic imperative was to attack Sudan from a united southern front that included Uganda, former host of Kagame. John Garang in Southern Sudan had to die when he unexpectedly made peace, he crashed in a helicopter that Ugandan president Museveni had lent him.
To read some context:
http://www.missio-aachen.de/Images/MR%20Ruanda%20englisch_tcm14-12288.pdf
Thanks for the link, Sabina. Very interesting, especially since situation in Darfur is frequently compared to Rwanda.
I see in today's news that Negroponte is concluding his visit to Africa and is now calling for two UN "peacekeeping" forces. The dual AU-UN force in Darfur PLUS a 'robust' UN force to be stationed in US-friendly Chad and Central African Republic. It augurs badly for peace in the region.
Sudan has been on the neo-con target list for many years.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/darfur-20040922.htm
Liberals who want to 'save darfur' should take another look at who they are getting into bed with.
Now, after criticising the Darfur campaign, and, very obliquely, conservative Israeli interests, watch us all get called "anti-semites" and/or "self-hating Jews"...
It is gratifying to see a few progressives in the U.S. (as evidenced by the scepticism of the above writers) begin to question the Save Darfur campaign which is the coddled pet of reactionary theocrats and anti-Islamic ravanchists in Washington, D.C. There are many layers to the problems in East Africa and Africa in general but the campaign to Save Darfur has nothing to do with saving the people of Darfur. The ultimate aim of these above named forces, in my opinion, is to create a permanent division within Sudan that will surely bring the West into greater conflict with the Arab/Islamic world. Somalia is another example of the US forcing a non-African agenda upon African peoples.
See article below and google "Does God Work for the CIA?" for additional information on the Theo-Cons reactionary contributions to the troubles in Sudan.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3144.shtml
The attack on the motives of those who align themselves with "Save Darfur" (which includes me) seems misplaced. I am pro-Palestinian, opposed to the Iraq war...and clearly, this is a complicated issue. Yes, the US backed Khartoum during the Cold War, and yes the US still relies on Khartoum for its "war on terror" (and thus effectively has its hands tied). All of us on the left agree that the US has a colonialist history, and that Bush is the worst offender in this regard.
Nevertheless, we are talking about an atrocity unmatched since Rwanda, an atrocity that is supported by Khartoum. All you need to know is that Khartoum has made repeated efforts to block international access to the refugees (those who could tell of the involvement of the Sudanese government first hand), and the recent NY Times report that the Sudanese government is disguising its planes as UN planes. Sure, it's complicated, but this is a genocide--an attempt to eliminate one group from the face of the earth. Thus, it demands action from us. An intervention is required to save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Save Darfur's motives should not be impugned. The idea is to transcend political disagreement in the name of a common human goal of stopping genocide.
Romeo Dallaire, the UN general who headed the peacekeeping troops in Rwanda in 1993-94, has written that a simple brigade of the LAPD would have been enough to save hundreds of thousands of lives. Regardless of the US's imperialist abuses in the Sudan (all of which I condemn), regardless of the left's objections to Negroponte's poisonous presence, the central issue is human slaughter. This is not just another bad situation in Africa. This is genocide. When it qualifies as genocide, we have a moral obligation to do something--whether it's US troops or UN troops or US financial support for the African Union.
In the end, Save Darfur is not about anything else than the moral obligation of responding to the worst type of human evil that we have yet concocted.
Johnson296 - undoubtedly there are many well meaning people who genuinely want to help. The question is whether their information is correct and whether their proposed solution - which now includes a 'no fly' zone as done in Iraq - will help or makes things worse.
Regarding the basic history, facts and current reality please read some of the prolific Alex De Waal. He has numerous books and articles. He speaks critically of humanitarian intervention and has a very interesting article (New Left Review) about what really happened in Somalia.
The recent article from LA Times (Menard and Smith) is at this link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-menard_smith14apr14,0,3370332.story?coll=la-home-commentary
See the excellent article by Mamdani from LRB that is linked at start of discussion. He talks about the politics (and abuse) of 'genocide' naming.