Darfur and Imperialism

[Phugebrins]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5363054.stm

UN Security Council resolution 1706 instructs an international force into Darfur. No volunteers have been forthcoming.

Just as middle-eastern issues affect the value of the dollar (being the currency of choice there for dealing in oil), so too can Sudanese issues affect the yuan.

On the other hand, we have Chad, whose regime has the tacit support of the IMF/WB, and I believe they are formally at war with Sudan.

I'm still having difficulty putting the pieces together in exactly the right order. Does anyone have any analysis that fits everything together neatly?

[Iseult_]

I think the AU should handle the Darfur situation. It would seem like imperialism to me if the former colonial powers went in.

[Phalanx]

The problem isn't solved by letting the AU handle it. Genocide continues in Darfur despite the presence of large numbers of AU troops.

An international force is necessary, not a force made of Western powers.

[IronColumn]

The U.N. commission on these events refused to call Darfur a "genocide".
Those who do express the idea of genocide are mainly US/UK/Israeli groups and establishment politicians. America has mislabeled several international events "genocides", i.e. in Yugoslavia, to justify invasions. I feel the U.N. is more credible.


Sudan also has oil and does all of its business with China.
Western companies have been wanting to utilize the Sudan's oil for some time.
If America or the West invaded another islamic nation that would simply make things worse, with extremists coming to attack American soldiers and the hostilities spurred on, not negotiated as they should be.

There is not, nor can there be, any solution to the Darfur events that involves America, at the very least. While the events there are undeniably tragic, if we really care about ending the conflict we should press America to stay out.

[Severian]

There was another thread on this recently.... (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56206)

Guess they could be merged. Anyway, I recommend taking a look at the other thread if you're interested in the subject.

[Phugebrins]

Mm, I was less looking at the question of 'what should be done', and more 'whose interests are being preserved by the impasse'.

[Severian]

I think it's more like: nobody's interests are strongly served by a larger intervention at this time. Sudan does not have that much oil, or other economic importance. It's strategic importance isn't that great either.

In contrast, rhetoric about how something must be done and intervention is needed for humanitarian reasons - does help provide political cover for interventions when and where they do serve some interest.

At some point, when the combatants are sufficiently worn down, they might be strongarmed into some settlement. Then, finally, the "international community" might step in, with much self-congratulation about how they've acted to stop genocide.

The main objective of intervention, I think, would be simply to build the precedent for more interventions under "humanitarian" cover.