Sudan

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Has anyone seen any good articles?

From what I've heard this episode could rank up there with the Holocaust and the Congo.

Yet, for some reason, the articels I have seen have been few and far between. I've also yet to see such an article on American media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4202599.stm

[RagsToRevolution]

I hate this situations. I am unsure what could be done, as you see, the U.S., if they operate in Sudan, will cause another Somalia because they will allow their Imperialist interests get involved. The UN is hardly any better. Interventionalism will make the situation worse if anything, and only cause more harm to more people. Not only that, but it spreads imperialist influence in the Third World and makes interests. We are, ahem, "forced" to take sides in these conflicts, much like Somalia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless he hates you too.

As sad, sad as it may be, we can only hope that individuals, and smaller, non-political affiliated organizations will do what is proper. However, interventionalism is not what is needed, what is needed is for the wrodl to provide the Sudanese tribes in Darfur the material and opputunity to help themselves. Which is why I greatly espouse such humanitarian effrots such as Doctors Without Borders, and also the Cuban doctor effort across Africa.

But this won't solve anything, in fact, it places more individuals in danger. But what it does is show that glimmer of hope for these people. It softens the wounds, and allows them to stand for themselves.

Unfortunately, in this world dominated by the imperialist US and it's cronies, it would be impossible for anti-imperialist nations such as Venezuala or Cuba (which, I will repeat, are anti-imperialist, I do not believe they are socialist, even if they have the capacity to pursue socialism, and are generally progressive and pro-revolutionary) to perform non-interests in Sudan.

The only alternative would be a strict peace-keeping and humanitarian mission performed by the UN, even if it is controlled by Imperialist nations, and keeping any military operations from individual nations. Any thoughts on this? It would most likely be a lognshot, but if we can show we are purely humanitarian and neutral, not taking sides in this tribal conflict, perhaps we can remain respected, as in the earlier stages of Somalia.

Even so, this is much different. This is one tribe, supported by the government as much evidence shows, overrunning another. How can we fully solve this?

[SpeCtrE]

The US is responsible in for the Situation in sudan. They should have acted sooner. And I think if Sudan is to become peaceful, the fundamentalist party and the current government should be eliminated.

[Bolshevist]

http://hrw.org/campaigns/darfur/index.htm

That is a good page with lots of articles you can read about the current situation.

I fail to see how this could be the result of American imperialism though, since the problems started when the desert started to move, forcing the Arabic nomades in to the African farmland's area. The government supported the Arabs, resulting in the African farmers forming a guerilla group, which resulted in the government mobilizing the Janjaweed, the ones guilty of this genocide. Colin Powell has said several times in the UN that this is infact a genocide and denounced these actions, but the British government has decided not to label this as a genocide saying it does not qualify for being labeled as genocide and mass murder.

[RagsToRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:02 PM
http://hrw.org/campaigns/darfur/index.htm

That is a good page with lots of articles you can read about the current situation.

I fail to see how this could be the result of American imperialism though, since the problems started when the desert started to move, forcing the Arabic nomades in to the African farmland's area. The government supported the Arabs, resulting in the African farmers forming a guerilla group, which resulted in the government mobilizing the Janjaweed, the ones guilty of this genocide. Colin Powell has said several times in the UN that this is infact a genocide and denounced these actions, but the British government has decided not to label this as a genocide saying it does not qualify for being labeled as genocide and mass murder.
Correct. I do not believe that it is a direct result of American imperialism. However, I fear any US or even UN intervention into Darfur would be tainted by imperialist self-interest, and any intervention would only proliferate escalation in the genocide. For this reason, I see it as a dilemna, because it is moral obligation vs. imperialism intervention (which in turn creates more hatred and reactionaries in the Middle East and Africa, and escalates the situation.)

[Bolshevist]

The African Union did place about 200 AUF soldiers in the area, to act as a buffer force and to document these events, but they were not allowed and (obviously) did not have the capacity to act as the buffer force they were supposed to be (keep in mind that they were only 200 with rather bad equipment) so this resulted in the AUF forces building camps and such for months.

If that is the only thing possible to prevent a genocide, it only (again) proves that some politicians place profits and access to natural resources over human life. 200 AUF soldiers is laughable.

Not to speak about the other things the Sudanese government is involved in.