Sudan

[monkeydust]

Two weeks ago, when asked about the crisis in Sudan, Tony Blair replied, "I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can." That last phrase made the suggestion that troops might be sent, which General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff, immediately confirmed.

Is Sudan to be the next target for Western Imperialism? Or will possible military intervention only be out of altruistic moral obligation?

To the latter question, I would a answer definitive no. Though there is undoubtedly a crisis in Sudan, it seems odd that the West would intervene here, of all places, for moral reasons. Though the media has portrayed the conflict there as simple ethnic cleansing, the reality is far more nebulous. They gloss over the fact that the Janjaweed militia come from the same ethnic groups as the people they are allegedly persecuting- everyone in Darfur is black, African, Arabic-speaking and Muslim.

Claims that the Sudanese government is coalescing in any supposed genocidal activity are unfounded, indeed, not only has the Sudanese defence minister condemned the Jankaweed as "bandits", but the judicial system has issued terrible punishments to many apparently involved in the atrocities. A case in point is the six Janjaweed soldiers, sentenced on July 19, to the amputation of their hands and legs.

It also seems odd that Sudan should be an area of particular concern. The crisis itself has been critical since 1999, yet few spoke of it then. The most liberal estimates indicate that at most 50,000 deaths have already occured. In reality, it is probably far less. Moreover, why should Sudan be of particular concern, when the ongoing war in neighbouring Congo has resulted in 2-3 million deaths?

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but, to me, the real motive for intervention in Sudan seems to be clear: the huge and largely untapped oil reserves in southern Sudan and southern Darfur.

It will be a tragedy if substantive military intervention is allowed to occur again without vehement opposition from the Left.

[Lardlad95]

As long as the deaths stop I don't care if lucifer him self is doing it. Am I over simplifying the situation? Yes. But still something needs to be done regardless of who does it.

[monkeydust]

As long as the deaths stop I don't care if lucifer him self is doing it. Am I over simplifying the situation? Yes. But still something needs to be done regardless of who does it.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, you'd think it "OK" for anyone to stop some of the deaths there in the short term, even if they were to wreck the country as a whole, obtain its valuable resources, destroy any potential for its future development and perpetuate the misery and suffering of the greater majority?

Well isn't that just quaint....... :)

It' not a case of "one or the other". It is possible to end, or at least reduce the suffering in Sudan, without sending in Imperialist troops from everyone's favourite coalition. Any aid, fundamentally must be politically neutral (in so far as it is possible).



Let me ask you a different question(or two): Why do you think troops need to be sent to Sudan, but not to Congo, or any other area in desperate need?

And why do you think that Britain, or for that matter the U.S. will intervene simply out of moral altruism?

[M.L]

I heard today that the US is about to send more troops to Sudan. From 600 to 2000 i think, and allso they might change the cause of the soldiers being there from observators to peacekeepers!(?)

2000 soldiers isn't much but that may well be increased. If one american soldiers was to be killed by a rebel the US would most definetly send more troops.

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

I think we've all seen that the American gov't (or the Brits for that matter) won't intervene simply for moral reasons.

The Congo question seems pretty simple, which makes me think I'm oversimplifying; they already have the money. Congo's resources are flowing to the first world, but the profiteers don't even have to get their hands dirty.

In the Sudan, I think the situations a lot different politically. I don't think you're going to see the kind of invasion as happened in Iraq. The U.S. is stretched, and the last thing they want is a "morally justified" war to gain economic strength (through oil).

Personally, I wouldn't immediately condemn an international peacekeeping force. The killing would stop, and it wouldn't even be all that tough. Where it gets sticky is what happens after the blood stops spilling. That's when it becomes an imperialist operation. And if what you said about oil reserves is true, that's what will happen.

What&#39;ll probably happen is a "multilateral" force (U.S. Army and forces from Liechtenstein) will stop the immediate violence, Sudan&#39;s regime will stay in place, will kill more people more quietly, and U.S. and British oil interests will "invest" in a new third world market. <_<

[Comrade BNS]

I think you are all forgetting the terrible events of Rwanda 10 years ago now. There has been huge backlashes against the west for either not intervening in rwanda or intervening too late to save thousands of lives. This is a particularly strong motive forthe west to intervene, to regain some at least partial credibility lost during its dual invations of the last few years.

Intervention IS the only way to stop the killing in Sudan. And no, the Janjaweed are not Nubians, they are al-khasid&#39;s who trace their decendancy fom one of Mohammed&#39;s cousins. This however is a purely political/racial conflict, not religious (if it were, the killing would not be occurring in an Islamic state against other muslims). And whilst the government is not overtly or directly sponsoring the Janjaweed, the killing has been going on since 99, as you say. If the government were serious about this, Darfur would have been secure within months of the outbreak of the conflict, and refugees would not be flooding over the border into Chad. The Sudanese government, had it strongly detested the actions of the Janjaweed, would have held it&#39;s borders to stop them raiding across into Chad to attack refugee settlements and camps. Something it has still failed to do.

Regardless to say, the west will squeeze everything they can from this intervention, but who else can afford to intervene? and saving lives, even though their quality may become diminished is certainly better then letting people simply be slaughtered.

Comrade BNS

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:06 PM
I heard today that the US is about to send more troops to Sudan. From 600 to 2000 i think, and allso they might change the cause of the soldiers being there from observators to peacekeepers&#33;(?)

2000 soldiers isn&#39;t much but that may well be increased. If one american soldiers was to be killed by a rebel the US would most definetly send more troops.
What are you talking about? There&#39;s no US soldiers in the Sudan. There was Swedish soldiers, along with other ?European soldiers, but I don&#39;t know if they are still there. If they are still there, they obviously aren&#39;t doing anything to help the current situation.

The government of the Sudan is fundamentalist Islamic and has been responsible for numerous war crimes throughout the years. There is a moral responsibility for Europe to get involved, especiually Italy, who colonizeds the Sudan. Back during the crisis in Rwanda, Belgiumfailed to act, costing hundreds of thousands odf innocent lives. Not only that, the US vetoed a UN security council resolution calling for increased intervention in Rwanda.

France has sent some soldiers (can&#39;t recall how many) to neighboring, Chad, where hundreds of thousands of refugees are pouring in. Hopefully, something is done fast, the international community has already wasted enough time.

[Lardlad95]

So, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, you&#39;d think it "OK" for anyone to stop some of the deaths there in the short term, even if they were to wreck the country as a whole, obtain its valuable resources, destroy any potential for its future development and perpetuate the misery and suffering of the greater majority?

hmmm.....why don&#39;t you go into more detail about how the US will do these things before i respond.

I must ask you this though, are you ok with the deaths that are going on? Are you fine with the suffering? Seriously, you seem to be trivializing it by claiming that all this is worth it because you think that the US is going to turn the country into a drilling field.



It&#39; not a case of "one or the other". It is possible to end, or at least reduce the suffering in Sudan, without sending in Imperialist troops from everyone&#39;s favourite coalition. Any aid, fundamentally must be politically neutral (in so far as it is possible).

And please tell me what nations that have the ability to aid in the Sudan are neutral. The European powers are imperialist too. Seriously what do you suggest. Just letting the situation run it&#39;s course? You&#39;re going to wait a long time to find a nation that is completely unbiased.



Let me ask you a different question(or two): Why do you think troops need to be sent to Sudan, but not to Congo, or any other area in desperate need?

Seriously, where did you here me say that aid shouldn&#39;t be sent to these places. The only reason I"m talking about the Sudan and not these places is because you brought up the sudan. If it were up to me the US would help all these places, and hopefully not impose it&#39;s will on them like you are suggesting it will.

there needs to be something done about sudan, thats why I&#39;m suggesting troops be sent there. Send aid to the congos also. What makes you think I value one place over the other?


And why do you think that Britain, or for that matter the U.S. will intervene simply out of moral altruism?

No nation acts simply in the best interest of other nations. I never claimed that the US would act simply because it feels it needs to. However I also don&#39;t think that it&#39;s part of some underlying plan to control the world&#39;s oil. You make it seem like that&#39;s the only reason that the us does anything. To get oil. No Oil, plus the fact that it makes them look good, plus some people in congress actualley think it&#39;s the right thing to do. It&#39;s a complilation of things.

I never said the US was doing it to simply be moral.

[h&s]

Really I don&#39;t give a shit how this gets sorted out, as long as the killing stops.
If were to you look at the refugee camps in Chad you would see raw sewage dumped in the &#39;roads&#39; between the tents, where the children play. You would see mass starvation, and diseases such as cholera and typhoid. In the refugee camps still in Sudan it is dangerous for women to go anywhere near the edges, but they have to do so to collect water.

[Guerrilla22]

Really the international community, be it the UN or an individual country or countries, someone needs to step in to stop this massacre, if you recall the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the whole world sat around on its ass while innocent civillians were slaughtered.

Also, estimates of how many were actually killed or were being killed were greatly underestimated. I&#39;m affraid that&#39;s what&#39;s happening here, as if the estimated 30,000 deaths weren&#39;t bad enough, the number could actually be much higher. Somebody needs to do something and fast.

[monkeydust]

I think we&#39;ve all seen that the American gov&#39;t (or the Brits for that matter) won&#39;t intervene simply for moral reasons. .....................Personally, I wouldn&#39;t immediately condemn an international peacekeeping force. The killing would stop, and it wouldn&#39;t even be all that tough. Where it gets sticky is what happens after the blood stops spilling.

Quite right.


hmmm.....why don&#39;t you go into more detail about how the US will do these things before i respond.


Sorry if this ends up a bit lengthly, but you said you wanted more detail. :P

Judging from the U.S&#39;s record, especially its recent reputation in Iraq, the welfare of any citzens in a foreign nation is only of secondary interest. I&#39;ve seen scenes from Iraq, for example, involving U.S. soldiers driving tanks through the walls of civilians&#39; houses (after being denied entry) simply to ask questions, without any pretext that those concerned were responsible for any crime whatsoever. Frankly, I don&#39;t think the West could give two shits about the Sudanese in the long term.

Perhaps U.S. and British military involvement might be permissible if they were to withdraw immediately after the situation had stabilised. I think it&#39;s likely, however, that foreign troops will remain after they&#39;ve solved the problems that they initially set out to tackle.

Particular concern for the long term welfare of the Sudanese will arise if foreign troops remain for an extended period of time, and/or if the West monopolizes Sudan&#39;s key assets (most notably the oil in the South) for their own purposes. Such an event will, as far as I can see, potentially have three major bad consequences for the Sudanese in the long term:

-Tensions in Sudan will only be kept at bay by military presence. Conflicts within the area will not be substanitally resolved , in fact, moreover, the prospect of the conflict resuming after military withdrawal may give justification for continued occupation. In short, military intervention will not really "solve" the problems in Sudan, merely subdue them for a time.

-Prosepects for involvement in the Sudanese governmental system by the West may prevent long term self-determination. Current hints by the media (completely unfounded in reality) that the Sudanese government actually supports ethnic cleansing may be an indication that the West intends to establish some form of control over Sudan&#39;s gevernment. At worst, this could result in a quisling regime.

-Seizure of Sudan&#39;s key resources by the West, with the intention of reaping the profits thereof may prevent the Sudanese people themselves from achieveing the material benefit of the wealth which their assets could create. In short, it may perpetuate the poverty of the Sudanese as a whole.


are you ok with the deaths that are going on? Are you fine with the suffering?

No,of course not.

I wasn&#39;t "OK" with Saddam being in control of Iraq, but that didn&#39;t lead me to support the war last year.


And please tell me what nations that have the ability to aid in the Sudan are neutral.

In the first place, international aid, on a large scale should be sent. This will, to some extent relieve the anguish and suffering of a number of refugees in Sudan.

As for possible military intervention, I might support it if it had a wide international base, certainly wider than in Iraq. It seems, however, that any action is likely to take the form of the Bush-Blair axis, with smaller contributions from a small number of others.


Seriously what do you suggest. Just letting the situation run it&#39;s course?

I suggest, firstly sending large numbers of international aid workers, as well as material aid for the refugees scattered in the area. I&#39;d also support international "pressure" on the Sudanese government to do more about the crisis themselves.

If it&#39;s a choice between letting the situation run its course and allowing the U.S. to occupy Sudan, I&#39;ll choose the former.


there needs to be something done about sudan, thats why I&#39;m suggesting troops be sent there. Send aid to the congos also. What makes you think I value one place over the other?


I don&#39;t necessarily think that. But in my opening post I mentined Congo, and how the deaths there number 2-3 million (as opposed to a maximum of about 30,000 in Sudan).

The issue isn&#39;t simply that you favour "one place over the other"; it&#39;s that you believe that the U.S. will help Sudan out of altruism, yet simultaneously ignore the plight of those in Congo. The fact that they don&#39;t even appear to give two shits about states such as Congo and others (where suffering is on a scale far greater than Sudan) should suggest that motives for intervention in Sudan are not purely selfless.


stop this massacre, if you recall the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the whole world sat around on its ass while innocent civillians were slaughtered.


That was indeed a tragedy. But in defence of my argument, the crisis in Sudan is simply not on the scale of what happened in Rwanda.

[redstar2000]

American or British troops in Sudan would not "stop the killing"...they would do the killing. That&#39;s what&#39;s happening in Afghanistan. That&#39;s what&#39;s happening in Iraq.

That&#39;s what would happen in Sudan&#33;

Imperialism never "stops the killing", it takes over the job&#33;

I simply cannot understand how anyone on this board can still even mention the word "humanitarian" in connection with imperialism&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So either way they are fucked. What a sick world we live in.

[all-too-human]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:52 PM
Is Sudan to be the next target for Western Imperialism? Or will possible military intervention only be out of altruistic moral obligation?

To the latter question, I would a answer definitive no.
I disagree, I think that after the horrible massacres in rwanda the west recognizes that a full-scale genocide is to be avoided at all costs. Romeo Dallaire wrote a very good book on the subject, it makes altruistic motives in the context of african genocides seem very reasonable.


I simply cannot understand how anyone on this board can still even mention the word "humanitarian" in connection with imperialism&#33;
the UN is not an imperialist organisation, I fail to see how an intervention and de-escalation of the darfur conflict would be in any way imperialist. I don&#39;t beleive that there is any other reasonable course of action than to intervene with peacekeepers.

[fuerzasocialista]

Where is the UN? Isn&#39;t this one of the things they should be worrying about? You figure that if you have massive tribal fighting and people trying to carry out genocide in a particular country, the UN would step in and do something. Perhaps they have there hands tied someplace else like, perhaps, fixing the US&#39;s horrific blunder by stepping into the Middle East.

[Comrade BNS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:58 AM
American or British troops in Sudan would not "stop the killing"...they would do the killing. That&#39;s what&#39;s happening in Afghanistan. That&#39;s what&#39;s happening in Iraq.

That&#39;s what would happen in Sudan&#33;

Imperialism never "stops the killing", it takes over the job&#33;

I simply cannot understand how anyone on this board can still even mention the word "humanitarian" in connection with imperialism&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I agree, with your point about the motives being anything but in a self interest. But the killing does have to stop&#33;

And might I ask why you object Mr. Star? they are after all &#39;die hard Islamic radicals&#39;.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

The UN is not an imperialist organisation...

It most certainly is&#33;

To be precise, the pretty powder-blue helmets serve as a cover for imperialist ambitions.

And, yes, they kill people too.


But the killing does have to stop&#33;

Wag your finger at them...that will do as much good as anything else that&#39;s been suggested.


And might I ask why you object Mr. Star? They are after all &#39;die hard Islamic radicals&#39;.

I am opposed, as a matter of principle, to imperialist intervention -- especially American intervention -- in any country at any time for any reason whatsoever.

However bad things might be in the shitholes of the world...imperialism will make things even worse.

No other outcome has even been recorded...or is even possible.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[18tir]

I don&#39;t know what the solution is to the killings in Sudan. So far, about 50,000 have been killed. But if this is allowed to continue, the death toll could rise to 500,000. It could be another Rwanda. As much as I despise foreign intervention, I don&#39;t see any other way. Either the Sudanese government stops the violence or other countries must get involved. Rather than one or two countries sending their troops, which would allow for colonization and exploitation, it would be a good idea to have a large coalition of nations to enter the country. After the safety of the Blacks has been assured, they would leave. Hopefully, the Blacks will be able to organize and fight back without any foreign help.

[Guerrilla22]

Someone needs to step in and stop the massacre, whether it be an imperialist nation or not (note: there aren&#39;t too many nations in the world that couldn&#39;t be considered an imperialist nation) You know very well, the US won&#39;t get involved, either will the UK, they both are too tied up in Afghainistan and Iraq, on top of that, neither country cared when people were being slaughtered in Rwanda, so why would they care now?

The UN was set up to respond to situations like these, unfortunately the UN rarely acts in situations like these and when it does act, it really just stands by and wags its proverbial finger at people and the carnage continues (remember Bosnia?)

My question is: where the hell is Italy? They were the nation that went in and colonized the Sudan, leaving the country in the state it is in today, don&#39;t the European powers that colonized and enslaved African nations have a duty to clean up the messes that follow, since they are largely responsible for Africa&#39;s instability?

[monkeydust]

I also forgot to mention: Negotiation between the rebel groups is still a possibility, after all, it&#39;s not as if their demanding for something as drastic as separatism.

It worked in Sri Lanka, after all.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:38 PM
I also forgot to mention: Negotiation between the rebel groups is still a possibility, after all, it&#39;s not as if their demanding for something as drastic as separatism.

It worked in Sri Lanka, after all.
The groups attacking the civillians aren&#39;t rebel groups, they&#39;re pro-government, Arab militia, the only way to stop them is if one of the varoius, underarmed rebel groups goes after them, which isn&#39;t likely, because they&#39;re too busy fighting governmetnt forces.

or if the Sudanese government sends in troops to disarm them, which they won&#39;t do, because the Sudanese government wants the black minority population to be wiped out, otherwise the wouldn&#39;t be arming the Arab militias.