Comrade Hector
4th November 2006, 23:51
Begining in 2003 the people of Darfur, Sudan have endured a mass government sponsored onslaught that has left possibly some 400,000 people dead, and an estimated over 2 million displaced. An Arab extremist Nomadic militia called the Janjaweed, whom have become synonymous with rape, pillage, massacres, ethnic cleansing and mass displacement of the non-Arab population in the region of Darfur. While the Sudanese government under the presidency of Omar al-Bashir continues to deny that it has any links to the Janjaweed whatsoever, despite the fact that the Janjaweed began their ethnic cleansing campaign after rebels in Darfur launched armed attacks against Sudanese troops in response to poverty, repression, and corruption as a result of al-Bashir's regime in Khartoum. Being that the Khartoum regime is on the U.S list as a so-called "rogue state", Washington was quick to label the conflict "genocide". While there can be no denial that the Janjaweed backed by the al-Bashir regime is conducting a genocidal policy against the people of Darfur, the U.S response is completely absurd while they conduct their mass murder of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sudan, since its independence in 1952, has been a nation ravaged by long lasting civil wars between the Arab Muslim population in the north, and the mostly black south. The Darfur conflict would be the third episode in a seemingly endless civil war. While, the Darfur rebels the SLA (Sudan Liberation Army) originally known as the "Darfur Liberation Front", began their struggle against the tyranny of Omar al-Bashir, they gained lots of international support and sympathy. The Darfur rebels are however split into 3 separate factions, which therefore makes their struggle against Khartoum regime even less competent. The main rebel faction SLA led by Minni Minnawi in May of 2006 signed a "peace deal" orchestrated by Washington, which was heavily opposed by the other two rebel factions: rival SLA faction and the Justice And Equality Movement. This "peace deal" was no miracle cure for the suffering in Darfur as by July 2006 fighting and mass killings erupted in Darfur.
In the midst of the fighting, the images of displaced persons and mass killings have been shown through the media, the people of Darfur have earned much sympathy world wide, particularly liberals. This includes much of the African-American population. It has also brought about an unholy coalition of liberals, conservatives, Zionists, and Christian fundamentalists. Liberal NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Africa Action as well have raised campaigns and rallies to raise the issue of Darfur. However, their calls for a "solution" to the Darfur conflict is US/UN imperialist intervention. In the demonstrations against the Bush onslaught in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of liberals were seen holding placards bearing an ulgy slogan "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur" in New York City in April 2006. This is also the mentality upheld by the AI, HRW, and other "human rights" NGOs. Clearly, this liberal call is for the bloodbath that the US rulers led in Afghanistan and Iraq (and many others before) to be taken into the Sudan along side UN for "humanitarian" purposes. It is absurd and disgusting to uphold the imperialists as "defenders of human rights". The liberals are either overly naive, or just plain blinded by imperialist propaganda. The Bush administration completely turned its back on the black people of New Orleans in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster. Elsewhere in the USA, the blacks are usually left in the ghettos with neglected housing, poverty stricken, racist police harassment, with little hope. And yet, these NGOs call on that very government to led a UN "peacekeeping" mission to help oppressed black people in Africa? Pathetic! Clearly, with Bush is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan due to fierce resistance, he has no interest in sending troops into Sudan.
What the liberals call for is a return to the Clinton style "humanitarian" military aggressions of the 1990s. The "humanitarian" label was actually created by former US Democratic president Jimmy Carter as a cover to give US imperialism a rosey image, and has only been used by the democrats since(and later republicans in Iraq since there were no WMD found). Clinton won the support of AI and HRW for his work with the den of thieves at the UN to initiate his bloody wars for "human rights". Bill Clinton meddled in Haiti's affairs and invaded the country in 1994, reinstalling Jean-Bertrand Aristide (overthrown in a US bakced coup in 2004). Clinton also proceeded in aiding the carve up and provoking the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, and ended up leading massive NATO bombardments of Serbian rebels in Croatia and Bosnia and aided the largest ethnic cleansing operation of over 300,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia. In 1999, Clinton led the largest NATO military operation in history against Serbia, bombing the country back into the stone age for "humanitarian" reasons. The previous year Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes against Afghanistan, and Sudan. In Sudan Clinton's "humanitarian" action destroyed the country's only pharmaceutical plant (a so-called "weapons factory"), and killed dozens. And yet, the US government is being called upon to help oppressed people in Sudan? Also, Clinton's sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, starved out over 2 million people, not including those killed from his weekly bombardments. This should clearly demonstrate to the liberals the "humanitarian" nature of the US government, but let's not fool ourselves, they were 100% supportive of these actions.
In Africa the liberals cheered in support of Clinton's UN "peacekeeping" missions in Somalia and Rwanda. NGOs promoted horrific pictures of starving masses by a fanatical warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid in the Somali capital of Mogadishu along with the imperialist media. While the starving masses of Somalia hoped for UN intervention to end the famine, the liberals called on the US government to intervene on behalf of a starving population, and cheered when their wish was granted. The UN "humanitarian" mission to end starvation turned out to be very different from what the Somali people had hoped for. While the media portrayed the UN "peacekeeping" mission as angelic and heartfelt, the reality was much different. Instead of touched personell eager to help, the people of Somalia were greeted with bloodthirsty and racist UN soldiers, half of whom were white supremacists and neo-Nazis in their countries. Instead of humanitarian aid, Somalis found themselves being harassed and/or shot at roadblocks especially if they resisted the imperialist presence, humiliated, tortured, and massacred. Belgian UN "peacekeepers" were photographed roasting a Somali child over a fire, another Belgian was accused of forcing a Somali child to eat pork, drink salt water and his own vomit. In Milan magazine Italian "peacekeepers" were photographed raping Somali women, and torturing a Somali youth. A US soldier was seen giving the boot to a Somali child at a checkpoint. Let's not forget Shidane Arone, a 16 year old Somali youth who was tortured for days and then murdered by Canadian "peacekeepers" (whom were former member of the Canadian branch of Aryan Nations). Naturally, after all this harassment and torture by their UN "saviors", the people of Mogadishu (men, women, children) took up arms against the invaders resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Somalis, and 18 US soldiers. The US/UN invaders were defeated, and later pulled out.
In Rwanda, the UN gave the people hope that they intended to help with the growing conflict. After the Rwandan president was assassinated, the Hutu extremists went on a genocidal campaign to wipe out the Tutsi "cockroaches". The UN response was the pretense of an intervention force to help the Tutsi, and moderate Hutu from government sponsored onslaught. The result was only evacuating the whites guests and other foreigners leaving hundreds of thousands to be ruthlessly butchered. Bill Clinton was often heard broadcasting only concern for the foreign guests in Rwanda on the eve of the genocide. Thanks for the help, Boutros Boutros-Ghali! But its really no wonder Boutros-Ghali turned his back on Rwanda. Before becoming the UN Secretary-General in 1992, he was Egypt's Forgeign Minister who approved a $5.8 million arms deal to the Hutu regime in Rwanda, arms that were used against the Tutsi population.
Is all this really the type of "help" that the suffering people of Darfur need in addition to the oppression of Khartoum? A likely liberal response would be something like "We failed the Bosnians, Rwandans, and Somalis. We don't have to fail the people of Darfur." After these so-called "peacekeeping" missions of imperialist rape, it should be crystal clear what the interest of the den of thieves at the UN really is. When it really comes down to it the UN is just another capitalist institution that need business. Their business has been after these conflicts mentioned earlier was to do virtually nothing to help people, and later bring "war criminals" (the side unfavorable to the West) to their kangaroo court in the Hague, Netherlands, and broker of so-called "peace deal" for the troubled region. If these conflicts never occured, what would the UN be? If all these troubled lands never had their bloody wars, the UN would be out of business.
Also ignored by the liberals is that the UN den of thieves should have no business conducting their bloody occupations of Africa as a desire for peace and equality for all. The UN is ran by the very same imperialists governments who carved up Africa for their own interests, created divisions, provoked rivalries and tribal wars. They drew up the current boundaries based on each imperialist's "own area", and proceeded to carve up their African states. The result was bleeding, robbing, starving, and exploiting the people of Africa, thereby halting any chance of African development. Let us not forget that American capitalism was built by the labor of African slaves against their will. Britain alone colonized Sudan in the 19th century and adapted a policy of running the country as two separate colonies of a north and south, playing Arab and African off against one another resulting in the seemingly endless civil wars that ravaged Sudan from its independence in 1956 to the present. But still the naive liberals hypocritically beseech these imperialists who've brought much suffering to the African continent to bring "peace" to the suffering people of Darfur. Clearly, these NGOs and their liberal supporters are simply cheerleaders for US-led imperialism, whose main argument against Bush's "unilateral" wars against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are hurting US imperialism rather than promoting it under the guise of "peace".
In regards to the factionated rebels of Darfur, they have a right to defend themselves against the Janjaweed militia sponsored by the al-Bashir government in Khartoum. However, there struggle will not be a fight for self determination should they become stooges of Washington, London, the UN, and NATO. They will simply become servants of the imperialists. In which case the future of Sudan will not change for the better should they take power from imperialist intervention, but will simply have a new capitalist government of what the imperialist believe a Sudanese ruling class should be.
THE SOLUTION: A revolutionary uprising of the workers and peasants in Sudan against the capitalist regime of al-Bashir. One that will establish a people's democratic order, and keep the country out of the hands of the US and their UN lapdogs.
Click Here For Photos (http://www.geocities.com/h_marroquin/Sudan.html)
Sudan, since its independence in 1952, has been a nation ravaged by long lasting civil wars between the Arab Muslim population in the north, and the mostly black south. The Darfur conflict would be the third episode in a seemingly endless civil war. While, the Darfur rebels the SLA (Sudan Liberation Army) originally known as the "Darfur Liberation Front", began their struggle against the tyranny of Omar al-Bashir, they gained lots of international support and sympathy. The Darfur rebels are however split into 3 separate factions, which therefore makes their struggle against Khartoum regime even less competent. The main rebel faction SLA led by Minni Minnawi in May of 2006 signed a "peace deal" orchestrated by Washington, which was heavily opposed by the other two rebel factions: rival SLA faction and the Justice And Equality Movement. This "peace deal" was no miracle cure for the suffering in Darfur as by July 2006 fighting and mass killings erupted in Darfur.
In the midst of the fighting, the images of displaced persons and mass killings have been shown through the media, the people of Darfur have earned much sympathy world wide, particularly liberals. This includes much of the African-American population. It has also brought about an unholy coalition of liberals, conservatives, Zionists, and Christian fundamentalists. Liberal NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Africa Action as well have raised campaigns and rallies to raise the issue of Darfur. However, their calls for a "solution" to the Darfur conflict is US/UN imperialist intervention. In the demonstrations against the Bush onslaught in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of liberals were seen holding placards bearing an ulgy slogan "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur" in New York City in April 2006. This is also the mentality upheld by the AI, HRW, and other "human rights" NGOs. Clearly, this liberal call is for the bloodbath that the US rulers led in Afghanistan and Iraq (and many others before) to be taken into the Sudan along side UN for "humanitarian" purposes. It is absurd and disgusting to uphold the imperialists as "defenders of human rights". The liberals are either overly naive, or just plain blinded by imperialist propaganda. The Bush administration completely turned its back on the black people of New Orleans in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster. Elsewhere in the USA, the blacks are usually left in the ghettos with neglected housing, poverty stricken, racist police harassment, with little hope. And yet, these NGOs call on that very government to led a UN "peacekeeping" mission to help oppressed black people in Africa? Pathetic! Clearly, with Bush is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan due to fierce resistance, he has no interest in sending troops into Sudan.
What the liberals call for is a return to the Clinton style "humanitarian" military aggressions of the 1990s. The "humanitarian" label was actually created by former US Democratic president Jimmy Carter as a cover to give US imperialism a rosey image, and has only been used by the democrats since(and later republicans in Iraq since there were no WMD found). Clinton won the support of AI and HRW for his work with the den of thieves at the UN to initiate his bloody wars for "human rights". Bill Clinton meddled in Haiti's affairs and invaded the country in 1994, reinstalling Jean-Bertrand Aristide (overthrown in a US bakced coup in 2004). Clinton also proceeded in aiding the carve up and provoking the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, and ended up leading massive NATO bombardments of Serbian rebels in Croatia and Bosnia and aided the largest ethnic cleansing operation of over 300,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia. In 1999, Clinton led the largest NATO military operation in history against Serbia, bombing the country back into the stone age for "humanitarian" reasons. The previous year Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes against Afghanistan, and Sudan. In Sudan Clinton's "humanitarian" action destroyed the country's only pharmaceutical plant (a so-called "weapons factory"), and killed dozens. And yet, the US government is being called upon to help oppressed people in Sudan? Also, Clinton's sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, starved out over 2 million people, not including those killed from his weekly bombardments. This should clearly demonstrate to the liberals the "humanitarian" nature of the US government, but let's not fool ourselves, they were 100% supportive of these actions.
In Africa the liberals cheered in support of Clinton's UN "peacekeeping" missions in Somalia and Rwanda. NGOs promoted horrific pictures of starving masses by a fanatical warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid in the Somali capital of Mogadishu along with the imperialist media. While the starving masses of Somalia hoped for UN intervention to end the famine, the liberals called on the US government to intervene on behalf of a starving population, and cheered when their wish was granted. The UN "humanitarian" mission to end starvation turned out to be very different from what the Somali people had hoped for. While the media portrayed the UN "peacekeeping" mission as angelic and heartfelt, the reality was much different. Instead of touched personell eager to help, the people of Somalia were greeted with bloodthirsty and racist UN soldiers, half of whom were white supremacists and neo-Nazis in their countries. Instead of humanitarian aid, Somalis found themselves being harassed and/or shot at roadblocks especially if they resisted the imperialist presence, humiliated, tortured, and massacred. Belgian UN "peacekeepers" were photographed roasting a Somali child over a fire, another Belgian was accused of forcing a Somali child to eat pork, drink salt water and his own vomit. In Milan magazine Italian "peacekeepers" were photographed raping Somali women, and torturing a Somali youth. A US soldier was seen giving the boot to a Somali child at a checkpoint. Let's not forget Shidane Arone, a 16 year old Somali youth who was tortured for days and then murdered by Canadian "peacekeepers" (whom were former member of the Canadian branch of Aryan Nations). Naturally, after all this harassment and torture by their UN "saviors", the people of Mogadishu (men, women, children) took up arms against the invaders resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Somalis, and 18 US soldiers. The US/UN invaders were defeated, and later pulled out.
In Rwanda, the UN gave the people hope that they intended to help with the growing conflict. After the Rwandan president was assassinated, the Hutu extremists went on a genocidal campaign to wipe out the Tutsi "cockroaches". The UN response was the pretense of an intervention force to help the Tutsi, and moderate Hutu from government sponsored onslaught. The result was only evacuating the whites guests and other foreigners leaving hundreds of thousands to be ruthlessly butchered. Bill Clinton was often heard broadcasting only concern for the foreign guests in Rwanda on the eve of the genocide. Thanks for the help, Boutros Boutros-Ghali! But its really no wonder Boutros-Ghali turned his back on Rwanda. Before becoming the UN Secretary-General in 1992, he was Egypt's Forgeign Minister who approved a $5.8 million arms deal to the Hutu regime in Rwanda, arms that were used against the Tutsi population.
Is all this really the type of "help" that the suffering people of Darfur need in addition to the oppression of Khartoum? A likely liberal response would be something like "We failed the Bosnians, Rwandans, and Somalis. We don't have to fail the people of Darfur." After these so-called "peacekeeping" missions of imperialist rape, it should be crystal clear what the interest of the den of thieves at the UN really is. When it really comes down to it the UN is just another capitalist institution that need business. Their business has been after these conflicts mentioned earlier was to do virtually nothing to help people, and later bring "war criminals" (the side unfavorable to the West) to their kangaroo court in the Hague, Netherlands, and broker of so-called "peace deal" for the troubled region. If these conflicts never occured, what would the UN be? If all these troubled lands never had their bloody wars, the UN would be out of business.
Also ignored by the liberals is that the UN den of thieves should have no business conducting their bloody occupations of Africa as a desire for peace and equality for all. The UN is ran by the very same imperialists governments who carved up Africa for their own interests, created divisions, provoked rivalries and tribal wars. They drew up the current boundaries based on each imperialist's "own area", and proceeded to carve up their African states. The result was bleeding, robbing, starving, and exploiting the people of Africa, thereby halting any chance of African development. Let us not forget that American capitalism was built by the labor of African slaves against their will. Britain alone colonized Sudan in the 19th century and adapted a policy of running the country as two separate colonies of a north and south, playing Arab and African off against one another resulting in the seemingly endless civil wars that ravaged Sudan from its independence in 1956 to the present. But still the naive liberals hypocritically beseech these imperialists who've brought much suffering to the African continent to bring "peace" to the suffering people of Darfur. Clearly, these NGOs and their liberal supporters are simply cheerleaders for US-led imperialism, whose main argument against Bush's "unilateral" wars against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are hurting US imperialism rather than promoting it under the guise of "peace".
In regards to the factionated rebels of Darfur, they have a right to defend themselves against the Janjaweed militia sponsored by the al-Bashir government in Khartoum. However, there struggle will not be a fight for self determination should they become stooges of Washington, London, the UN, and NATO. They will simply become servants of the imperialists. In which case the future of Sudan will not change for the better should they take power from imperialist intervention, but will simply have a new capitalist government of what the imperialist believe a Sudanese ruling class should be.
THE SOLUTION: A revolutionary uprising of the workers and peasants in Sudan against the capitalist regime of al-Bashir. One that will establish a people's democratic order, and keep the country out of the hands of the US and their UN lapdogs.
Click Here For Photos (http://www.geocities.com/h_marroquin/Sudan.html)