Save Darfur from US intervention

[Guerrilla22]

US and or NATO intervention is not the way to go. Some people on this board have gone as far as supporting US/NATO intervention, to stop the genocide. However, US and NATO intervetions have always made the situation worse. Here's a good article on the situation in this month's ISR.

http://isreview.org/issues/50/darfur.shtml

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by article+--> (article)and imperial planners will escalate it only if they see it as a way to further their prime objective in the region-to muscle out potential rivals such as China in a scramble for oil and other resources.[/b]

Both the United States and Britain pulled their oil companies out of Sudan in response to the North/South civil war.


article
If the U.S. is allowed to get deeper into Sudan, things could actually get worse for Darfurians-and for many other Africans.

Yep. Just like the Kurdish problems worsened after the United States established a no fly zone in Kurdistan.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you weed out the regular Spart sectarianism, this is a pretty good article on the subject:

No to UN/Imperialist Intervention in Sudan! (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/877/darfur.html)

[Guerrilla22]

Its interesting that the zionist, evagelicals, neo-cons and liberals have all banded together to call for US intervention.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks for the ISR article. This is going to be a very tricky issue for the left to deal with. Darfur is a freaking disaster and there appears to be no agency that can and will help the people.

Many of the loudest calls for intervention are coming from the moderate centre left.

In Canada, Jack Layton,the leader of the NDP (Canada's social democratic party) was calling for troops out of Afghanistan and into Darfur. The NDP recently got a strong mandate from the membership at its policy convention that was much more clearly anti-imperialist/interventionist, but....

[Red October]

then what are we supposed to do with darfur? im not saying i support the US, but what other options do we have? i dont think the red cross can really stop the militias from massacreing people.

[Phalanx]

Something needs to be done urgently. This has been going on for years, 400,000 dead, 2.5 million displaced, and continuing unabated. In fact, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6144424.stm) 30 people died from Janjaweed attacks just today. There is no outcry, and no action against the genocide, either. We all know that the USA is all to willing to intervene in anything, but who else can possibly stop the genocide?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Either the Sudanese people will, or no one will. No one that's going to "intervene" is going to help the people of Sudan. We've already had this discussion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

At this month’s UN general assembly, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and other imperialist leaders, along with their mouthpieces like UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, were united in calling for a new UN “peacekeeping operation” to back up the 7,000 African Union (AU) troops already there. There are already 10,000 UN troops in Sudan, ostensibly to police a peacekeeping agreement between rebellious forces in the south of the country, which has a black African population, and the reactionary Muslim Arab regime in Khartoum, whose bloodsoaked rule has meant the death and imprisonment of thousands of labor activists, Communists and other opponents.

But any imperialist intervention in Sudan, including under the UN flag or through the agency of the AU, only deepens the misery of all the peoples of the region and strengthens imperialism at the expense of oppressed peoples around the globe.

...

In addressing the Darfur situation, Bill Fletcher Jr., a longtime AFL-CIO spokesman, described the dilemma for himself and other black liberals, writing in “Darfur: What Should the U.S. Do?” (National Newspaper Publishers Association, 12 July): “What does one ask of an administration that lied us into a war and occupation of Iraq; threatens Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea with possible military action?” Nevertheless, Fletcher does look to Bush, a man intensely and justly hated by black people, to stop the slaughter in Darfur, although without directly utilizing U.S. military forces. Fletcher writes: “The Darfur crisis must be resolved by Africans.… If the Bush administration wishes to help, then let them support the African Union financially and diplomatically. Provide the AU with sufficient logistical support to deploy more peacekeepers.”

But who are these “peacekeepers”? The AU deployment in Darfur is currently mainly made up of forces from Rwanda and Nigeria. These countries and the other states making up the AU are themselves ruled by monumentally brutal and corrupt neocolonial regimes. Their military forces routinely rape, torture and massacre tribal villagers, committing atrocities similar to those being committed in Darfur, although without the same kind of publicity. It is grotesque to view the bloody capitalist regimes that rule every country in Africa as part of the answer for Africa’s oppressed. Furthermore, the AU is and can only be a shill for the interests of the far more powerful imperialist countries.

In order to gain public support for escalating imperialist intervention in Sudan, the “save Darfur” campaign describes what is happening there as genocide. But what is happening in Darfur is not genocide, an emotion-laden term that has frequently been inflated to cover all national, racial and ethnic atrocities. One of the few liberal publicists who argues against using that label for Darfur is Jonathan Steele, who commented in a British Guardian column (19 September) that “Darfur is not Rwanda” but a brutal civil war. Furthermore, he pointed out, “the [anti-Khartoum] rebels also committed atrocities,” something that has rarely been reported in the Western media. Despite this recognition, Steele pushes the line in favor of more AU “peacekeepers” to Sudan.

...

Neither the Bush gang nor the Democrats are eager to engage in a serious intervention in Sudan. As U.S. forces are stretched to the limit in the brutal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats and Republicans both prefer to grandstand about “Muslim atrocities” in Sudan while subcontracting any intervention to other countries or coalitions. However, they do find it convenient to cynically stoke outrage over Darfur to serve their ideological purposes.

...

The U.S. imperialist government, whether administered by Democrats or Republicans, actively supports the murderous oppression of peoples in various Third World countries when carried out by its allies and client regimes, and is itself the perpetrator of mass murder, most recently in the war against Serbia in 1999 and the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq today. Notwithstanding the Democrats’ attempts to capitalize on anger at the Republicans over Darfur, racist indifference to black life is a constant thread throughout the history of U.S. involvement with Africa. More fundamentally, the systematic oppression and impoverishment of the black population has always been rooted in the bedrock of American capitalism. This was flagrantly demonstrated for all to see by the Democrats’ and Republicans’ abandonment of masses of poor blacks to die a year ago in New Orleans (see article, page one). It is necessary to remember the imperialist “humanitarian” missions undertaken under Democratic administrations, including Clinton’s U.S.-led UN intervention to “help” starving black Somalis. Troops brutalized the population, massacring at least 1,000 Somalis at the battle of Mogadishu in October 1993. The Somalis’ killing of 18 soldiers in that battle led to the U.S.’ ignominious withdrawal the following year, after it was made crystal clear that “humanitarianism” had simply been window-dressing for racist imperialist aggression.

...

The dominant members of the UN besides the U.S. are those very European nations—Britain, Germany, France—that along with Belgium historically bled, enslaved and exploited Africa, carving it up to suit their imperialist interests. Britain itself conquered Sudan through the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people. Calling on the imperialists to bring peace and freedom to Darfur is like expecting the fox not only to protect the henhouse but to deliver the feed. - From the Spart article.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 13, 2006 05:14 pm
Something needs to be done urgently. This has been going on for years, 400,000 dead, 2.5 million displaced, and continuing unabated. In fact, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6144424.stm) 30 people died from Janjaweed attacks just today. There is no outcry, and no action against the genocide, either. We all know that the USA is all to willing to intervene in anything, but who else can possibly stop the genocide?
Iraq has 600,000+ dead and 30 or more deaths a day. US imperialism is the sole cause of this extreme violence and that is something we can change right now. Working out social/religious/cultural diferences in Sudan is something much harder and not something our intervention is going to solve. That problem must be solved by the people who live there.

I'm not saying nothing should be done. I am saying that occupation is not going to actually solve problems. It may delay them or instigate them. Iraq is one massacre we can physically stop once we have enough people comitted to the struggle.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2006 10:33 pm
Either the Sudanese people will, or no one will. No one that's going to "intervene" is going to help the people of Sudan. We've already had this discussion.
How about the Holocaust? Would only the German people stop the genocide, or did it take foreign intervention?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+November 13, 2006 07:38 pm--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ November 13, 2006 07:38 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 13, 2006 10:33 pm
Either the Sudanese people will, or no one will. No one that's going to "intervene" is going to help the people of Sudan. We've already had this discussion.
How about the Holocaust? Would only the German people stop the genocide, or did it take foreign intervention? [/b]
What you are trying to do is put a western solution on a problem which you have no idea about. The differences between the sides is cultural and religious correct? You don't solve those with tanks and soldiers. The solution must come from the people who have those problems. They know what the problem is and how best to address it.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 11:43 pm
What you are trying to do is put a western solution on a problem which you have no idea about. The differences between the sides is cultural and religious correct? You don't solve those with tanks and soldiers. The solution must come from the people who have those problems. They know what the problem is and how best to address it.
The Holocaust was based on cultural and religious differences as well. Open dialogue to end the genocide would have been less bloody and involved less tanks and soldiers, but it's also the slowest solution, and in the meantime more people are getting killed.

People are the same everywhere, it doesn't matter on location. Most genocides are fundamentally similar: Countries where the populace has had it extremely rough and looking for someone to blame. Look at the Armenians in Turkey, the Tutsis in Rwanda, Darfuris in Sudan, Jews and Gypsies in Germany, etc.

[Red October]

i dont think sitting around waiting for the sudanese to work out their differences is going to stop it

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 13, 2006 07:47 pm

People are the same everywhere, it doesn't matter on location. Most genocides are fundamentally similar: Countries where the populace has had it extremely rough and looking for someone to blame. Look at the Armenians in Turkey, the Tutsis in Rwanda, Darfuris in Sudan, Jews and Gypsies in Germany, etc.
And your solution is military occupation by a foreign force? Ah makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

[BreadBros]

We all know that the USA is all to willing to intervene in anything, but who else can possibly stop the genocide?

They obviously aren't willing to intervene in this. At the moment, if they did they'd get massive support from the populace and what not. But theres no reason to. Theres not much wealth there (at least not compared to Iraq or other countries) to exploit, plus sending an army there would be very expensive, ergo no one has done shit and I doubt anyone will do anything for the time being.


What you are trying to do is put a western solution on a problem which you have no idea about. The differences between the sides is cultural and religious correct? You don't solve those with tanks and soldiers.

What are you implying? Who cares if its a cultural or religious conflict? And actually, tanks and soldiers are about the only thing I've ever heard of or can think of that has ever stopped a genocide.


The solution must come from the people who have those problems. They know what the problem is and how best to address it.

Wow, thats one of the stupidest things I've heard as its materially impossible for them to solve those problems if they have no fucking guns and the asshole militias do. Just because we dont want the US to get involved doesn't mean we have to start arguing idealist BS. I myself would propose a Venezuela + anti-imperialist allies coalition to intervene. It would have to be a tradeoff though, the huge cost of funding such a thing in return for greater political influence within the African world + stopping the bloodshed. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[Red October]

I myself would propose a Venezuela + anti-imperialist allies coalition to intervene.

do they have the military strength and funding to do that? getting an army into sudan from south america and other places wouldnt be very practical.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+November 14, 2006 12:17 am--> (violencia.Proletariat @ November 14, 2006 12:17 am)
Tatanka [email protected] 13, 2006 07:47 pm

People are the same everywhere, it doesn't matter on location. Most genocides are fundamentally similar: Countries where the populace has had it extremely rough and looking for someone to blame. Look at the Armenians in Turkey, the Tutsis in Rwanda, Darfuris in Sudan, Jews and Gypsies in Germany, etc.
And your solution is military occupation by a foreign force? Ah makes perfect sense :rolleyes: [/b]
The US shouldn't be the one to intervene, or any Western power. But an AU force should be given the clearance to destroy the Janjaweed. If that were to happen, people could return to their homes and aid could get to everyone in Darfur.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why destroy the janjaweed but not the Sudanese government and militias in the south? Your line leads to even more problems for the people of Sudan.

And on the AU, for the third time: "The AU deployment in Darfur is currently mainly made up of forces from Rwanda and Nigeria. These countries and the other states making up the AU are themselves ruled by monumentally brutal and corrupt neocolonial regimes. Their military forces routinely rape, torture and massacre tribal villagers, committing atrocities similar to those being committed in Darfur, although without the same kind of publicity. It is grotesque to view the bloody capitalist regimes that rule every country in Africa as part of the answer for Africa’s oppressed. Furthermore, the AU is and can only be a shill for the interests of the far more powerful imperialist countries."

[Tekun]

As far as the ppl of Darfur solving their own problems, how would they go about it?
I mean, most ppl in that general area are young women with children i.e. refugees, and those fighting it out are armed militias and soldiers
So could they go about solving ethno/political/religious differences, considering that the AU and the imperialists provide no answer but just more problems?

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 10:34 am
As far as the ppl of Darfur solving their own problems, how would they go about it?
I mean, most ppl in that general area are young women with children i.e. refugees, and those fighting it out are armed militias and soldiers
So could they go about solving religious differences, considering that the AU and the imperialists provide no answer but just more problems?
No, it's really not about religious differences. The people in Darfur are Muslims just like the government. You also hit the nail on the head. There is no way for refugees to defend themselves against the Sudanese government that employs helicopter gunships against villages. Personally, I don't have a problem with the UN setting up a no fly zone in Darfur like in Iraq (as long as the fighter jets only attack gunships). Unfortunately the governments of the world are doing nothing to stop these killings.

And for the members that are against any form of military intervention, would you also be against military intervention by imperialist nations in Lebanon against Israel?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And for the members that are against any form of military intervention, would you also be against military intervention by imperialist nations in Lebanon against Israel?

Yes, of course.


Originally posted by The Free Press
No to UN “peace keepers”!
A recent agreement by the imperialist powers calls for Israel to stop attacking Lebanon, and to maintain their occupation until UN “peace keepers” to arrive. But as we've seen in the bloody occupation of Haiti, these “peace keepers” will do anything but keep the peace.

Just as the wars against the Korean, Vietnamese and Yugoslavian people were carried out by so-called “multi-national forces,” soldiers sent by the United Nations (which is overwhelmingly made up of imperialist powers and their colonial possessions) will serve the interests of the imperialists.

It is on these grounds that the UN occupiers must be opposed. Workers, farmers and unemployed people in Lebanon and Palestine must take action and organize in their own defense – and arm themselves with a socialist outlook – and the toiling masses around the world must support them in doing so.

Workers' actions to really end the war!
Just as many longshoremen in the U.S. refused to touch cargo headed to, or coming from South Africa while the racist apartheid system existed there, workers in the trucking and shipping industries in the U.S. and Israel must refuse to touch any war supplies going to the Israeli Defense Forces or the coming UN occupation forces.

The workers of the world must unite to defeat imperialism and defend the Palestinian and Lebanese people! Source (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?167)

* * *

The point people are missing is, no imperialist is going to solve the problems of the people of Sudan. They can't. Calling for "troops in" is like calling in a rapist to treat rape victims.

The people ARE able to stop what's going on, but it requires unity. In fact, they HAVE to stop what's going on, because if they don't no one will.

If that takes weeks, months or years, that's what it takes. It's not up to us to call on our imperialists to intervene (which they would do ONLY if it served their own interests).

The fact that this whole conflict has its roots in the fake borders drawn up by the colonizers to begin with should tell you all something.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2006 10:33 pm
Either the Sudanese people will, or no one will. No one that's going to "intervene" is going to help the people of Sudan. We've already had this discussion.
true

i think the only way is to establish self-defense militias of, by and for the people in those areas.

[YKTMX]

It's agreed.

There is a civil war in the Sudan at the moment, not a "genocide". This whole campaign for an "intervention" is an effort to restore the "good name" of liberal imperialism in the aftermath of the Iraq disaster.

I find it slightly perverse that, given the situation in Iraq right now, anyone could suggest that what Darfur needs in some U.S Marines on the ground.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, and when you're calling for the same thing that George W. Bush is, you may want to reconsider your position.

Liberals and some "leftists": Calling for a UN peace keeping force in Dafur.

Bush: "At this month’s UN general assembly, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and other imperialist leaders, along with their mouthpieces like UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, were united in calling for a new UN “peacekeeping operation” to back up the 7,000 African Union (AU) troops already there."

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:40 pm



Simple question, did anyone read the article?


There is a civil war in the Sudan at the moment, not a "genocide".

Ok YKTMX - I believe you, it is a civil war and not ethnic cleansing, just to demonstrate your knowledge in this conflict, why don't you provide links?


I find it slightly perverse that, given the situation in Iraq right now, anyone could suggest that what Darfur needs in some U.S Marines on the ground.

Me too. Which to be sure, no one in this thread advocated sending in US Marines.


Why destroy the janjaweed but not the Sudanese government and militias in the south?

Well the militias are ones you believe will be able to stop the killing in Darfur...Unfortunately they are splintered from infighting between three main militia factions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well the militias are ones you believe will be able to stop the killing in Darfur

I do? When did I say that? Oh that's right, I didn't.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLiberta[email protected] 14, 2006 09:20 pm

Well the militias are ones you believe will be able to stop the killing in Darfur

I do? When did I say that? Oh that's right, I didn't.

Either the Sudanese people will, or no one will


The people ARE able to stop what's going on, but it requires unity

mi‧li‧tia  /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

mi·li·tia (m-lsh) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

You're so funny. In other words, you want armed civilians to defend against an enemy army, just don't call them a 'militia'.

[Brekisonphilous]

I think the U.S. and NATO forces should supply firearms and ammunition to the sadanese people to form a resistance for themselves.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:33 am
I think the U.S. and NATO forces should supply firearms and ammunition to the sadanese people to form a resistance for themselves.
The last thing the people of Darfur need is the Americans delegitimizing their cause. It's the same with the Kurds. Recently the IOF helped train Kurdish militias, as someone who supports Kurdish autonomy, how do you think that will go over with the Arabs in Iraq after America leaves?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by The Free Press
No to UN “peace keepers”!
A recent agreement by the imperialist powers calls for Israel to stop attacking Lebanon, and to maintain their occupation until UN “peace keepers” to arrive. But as we've seen in the bloody occupation of Haiti, these “peace keepers” will do anything but keep the peace.

Just as the wars against the Korean, Vietnamese and Yugoslavian people were carried out by so-called “multi-national forces,” soldiers sent by the United Nations (which is overwhelmingly made up of imperialist powers and their colonial possessions) will serve the interests of the imperialists.

It is on these grounds that the UN occupiers must be opposed. Workers, farmers and unemployed people in Lebanon and Palestine must take action and organize in their own defense – and arm themselves with a socialist outlook – and the toiling masses around the world must support them in doing so.

Workers' actions to really end the war!
Just as many longshoremen in the U.S. refused to touch cargo headed to, or coming from South Africa while the racist apartheid system existed there, workers in the trucking and shipping industries in the U.S. and Israel must refuse to touch any war supplies going to the Israeli Defense Forces or the coming UN occupation forces.

The workers of the world must unite to defeat imperialism and defend the Palestinian and Lebanese people! Source (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?167)

I don't see what that would solve. Of course refusing to handle IDF goods would be a great move, but I don't see how it relates to Darfur at all or would solve the problems.


The point people are missing is, no imperialist is going to solve the problems of the people of Sudan. They can't. Calling for "troops in" is like calling in a rapist to treat rape victims.

Of course an intervention by imperialist troops would bring about a whole slew of problems. Theres a difference between calling for an imperialist intervention and acknowledging that at this point only military aid can stop the fighting.


The people ARE able to stop what's going on, but it requires unity. In fact, they HAVE to stop what's going on, because if they don't no one will.

Really, care to give an example? Unity is a great concept, but I don't exactly see how a unified agrarian people would in any way be able to stop armed militias. Especially when other concerns such as shelter and food are also pertinent. Could you give us some material examples of what they could do other than abstract idealism like "unity"?


If that takes weeks, months or years, that's what it takes. It's not up to us to call on our imperialists to intervene (which they would do ONLY if it served their own interests).

If you're waiting for the populace to unite and...idk, use magic? or something to get rid of the competing militias, then I wouldn't hold my breath, as thats likely never to happen.


The fact that this whole conflict has its roots in the fake borders drawn up by the colonizers to begin with should tell you all something.

Yeah, it tells us that colonization was a process ordered around capitalist extraction of wealth, and not actual ethnic or political boundaries. In regards to the current conflict, it doesn't tell us anything thats of practical use.


There is a civil war in the Sudan at the moment, not a "genocide".

Thats questionable. Civilians are being targetted based on ethnicity, not on political or ideological beliefs. Furthermore, the Sudanese state has funded and armed the Janjaweed. State-sponsored mass murder of people based on their ethnicity sure sounds similar to a genocide to me.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:40 pm
There is a civil war in the Sudan at the moment, not a "genocide".
Just like the occupation is a war for Israel's survival :rolleyes:

[Guerrilla22]

I see not too may people actually took the time to read the article I posted. So I'll summmarize, 1. The conflict in the Sudan isn't just about the janjaweed, its much more complex, as the author of the article explains. 2. The US has been providing arms to both the government and the rebels for years, which has only increased the problems. 3. The NATO intervention in Kosovo left thousands of civillian causalties from US bombs and missiles and dramatically increased the number of refugees.

[Klement Gottwald]

There is no genocide in Darfur. Everyone in Darfur is a negro. Everyone in Darfur speaks Arabic. Everyone in Darfur is a Muslim. There has been war in Sudan in 40 of the past 50 years. The current conflict was started by Zionist-American proxies. The ones who persistently agitate for an illegal invasion of Sudan are Zionist Jew groups. Thousands of people have died due to disease from the deteriorating economic situation brought by the Zionist proxies. The NATO imperialists are trying to balkanize Sudan and other "rogue" states like Iran and Syria. Revolutionary minded people ought not to be deceived by the lies disseminated by western media cartels. While the western media disproportionately emphasizes the huminatarian crisis in Sudan, there has been no attention for Congo whose humanitarian crisis is the world's worst.

John Garang, a man who studied at Fort Benning (the site of the infamous School of the Americas), became leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the main leader of the southern rebels in the civil war. The USA and Israel encouraged the civil war. Since at least the early 90s the USA funded the SPLA. Even former U.S president Jimmy Carter acknowledges the US role in destabilizing Sudan in the 1990's. The Boston Globe in 1999 quoted Carter: “The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war."

Perhaps two million Sudanese died because of the war in the 80s and 90s. Millions more were displaced, primarily southerners fleeing from the SPLA which took over the south and set up an alternative state which even Western “Human Rights” organizations admitted had a worse human rights record than the Khartoum government in the north. Over a million refugees from the south have resettled in Khartoum and live there til this day.

In October 2002, now during the George W Bush administration, the US government passed the so-called “Sudan Peace Act” which allocated $100 million dollars per year for 2003, 2004 and 2005 “for assistance to areas outside government control “, i.e., to the SPLA. Furthermore it required “the U.S. president” to make a determination once every six months about whether the Sudanese government is “negotiating in good faith” with the SPLA or not.

Just as it was becoming apparent that peace would break out in the south, in 2003 another civil war flared up in the Darfur region in western Sudan. Starting in February 2003, well-armed rebels of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), supported by USA and Israel through the intermediary countries of Eritrea and Chad respectively, launched a series of attacks on police stations in Darfur killing many hundreds of police officers. With this police infrastructure gone, Darfur, a remote region (in an impoverished country) with many groups competing for farm and grazing land, turned into a violent lawless zone with many armed groups fighting each other, e.g., SLA, JEM, the Sudanese military, the Chadean military, local militias of all ethnicities and aligned with all sides of the conflict, and bandits. The situation deteriorated through 2004. Thousands of Darfurians were killed by violence by the various armed groups. Life was disrupted so agriculture, on which most people in Darfur subsisted, became difficult or impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people became refugees. Tens of thousands died from disease and famine.

The war in Darfur is not a religious war of Muslim against non-Muslim. Everyone in Darfur is Muslim. And it is not a racial war of White Arabs against Black Africans. Everyone in Darfur is a Black African. It’s not even a war of Arabs against non-Arabs. Arabic is the lingua franca of Darfur and the language of education. Everyone in Darfur speaks Arabic. One aspect of the war is a conflict over water and land usage between nomadic groups, who subsist by raising livestock and who travel long distances for grazing, and settled farming groups. These nomadic groups are the groups that are identified by the US/Zionist media as being the source of the so-called “Arab Janjaweed”. These nomadic groups are some of the most marginalized people in the world. The town-dwellers in Darfur have traditionally looked down on them and pejoratively labeled them as “Bedouins” which has often been translated into English as Arabs. It is true that some, not all, of the settled groups in Darfur speak other African languages at home in addition to being educated in Arabic, but they are Muslims in an Arabic-speaking country and many of them are better educated in the Arabic language than even mono-lingual Arabic speaking nomads.

http://bridgenews.org/documents/roldesudan/view

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by tecumseh+November 15, 2006 04:41 am--> (tecumseh @ November 15, 2006 04:41 am)
[email protected] 15, 2006 04:33 am
I think the U.S. and NATO forces should supply firearms and ammunition to the sadanese people to form a resistance for themselves.
The last thing the people of Darfur need is the Americans delegitimizing their cause. It's the same with the Kurds. Recently the IOF helped train Kurdish militias, as someone who supports Kurdish autonomy, how do you think that will go over with the Arabs in Iraq after America leaves? [/b]
Their cause??? and what cause would that be? betting destroyed in a genocide with little means of self defense? I didn't even call for occupation, but rather arming the people. It is time to swallow your pride and recognize that they need help, even if they are aided by the U.S., that is far better than occupation.

[Edelweiss]

Often ignored is the role of upcoming imperialist superpower China in this conflict. Clearly one of the main culprits here. The reactionary, Islamic Sudanese government is killing with Chinese weapons. See

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec22.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html)
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0807-Darfur.html

In the end this seems to be just another proxy war for oil between imperialist powers. To support one side against the other is reactionary, narrow-minded and simplified, anti-American bullshit.

Of course it's easier for "anti-imperialist", pseudo-Leftist, anti-semitic identity politics as displayed by Gottwald to solely blame the evil Jews once again for all evil on earth including the tragedy in Dafur, and to support any, no matter how reactionary and criminal government, if they only are against the evil zionists and the yankees.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 11:21 pm
Often ignored is the role of upcoming imperialist superpower China in this conflict. Clearly one of the main culprits here. The reactionary, Islamic Sudanese government is killing with Chinese weapons. See

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec22.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html)
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0807-Darfur.html

In the end this seems to be just another proxy war for oil between imperialist powers. To support one side against the other is reactionary, narrow-minded and simplified, anti-American bullshit.

Of course it's easier for "anti-imperialist", pseudo-Leftist, anti-semitic identity politics as displayed by Gottwald to solely blame the evil Jews once again for all evil on earth including the tragedy in Dafur, and to support any, no matter how reactionary and criminal government, if they only are against the evil zionists and the yankees.
Thanks for pointing this out, the article I posted mentions this also. China is dealing arms for oil with the Sudanese government while the US is flooding the south with arms.

[Brekisonphilous]

So it is kind of like fighting fire with fire... great.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:56 am
So it is kind of like fighting fire with fire... great.
Yes, flooding a country with arms has never solved a damn thing, in its only worsned the situation, see Somalia and Colombia. Yet we have people on this board calling for the US and nATO to deliver more weapons to the region. Apparently they don't care about the people of the Sudan too much.

[Brekisonphilous]

no man, no problem

lol jk. I actually wasn't sure about the conflict until reading that article. Now i feel a lot more informed and withdraw my statement about arming the people.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

China is not imperialist. Seriously, folks should understand what the word means before they use it. I'm getting tired of seeing people post about "Chinese imperialism" and "Soviet imperialism".

Here's a good definition of what it actually is. (http://marx.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism)

[Phalanx]

Don't you think the Soviet Unions' movement of ethnic Russians into Central Asia had colonial aims? The article didn't clarify this issue.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 16, 2006 03:40 am
China is not imperialist. Seriously, folks should understand what the word means before they use it. I'm getting tired of seeing people post about "Chinese imperialism" and "Soviet imperialism".

Here's a good definition of what it actually is. (http://marx.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism)
No, China is not imperialist, however the fact that they're dealing arms to the Sudanese government definitely is not helping the situation.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 16, 2006 04:40 am
China is not imperialist. Seriously, folks should understand what the word means before they use it. I'm getting tired of seeing people post about "Chinese imperialism" and "Soviet imperialism".

Here's a good definition of what it actually is. (http://marx.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism)
I said upcoming imperialist superpower, which is hardly questionable IMO. Although China's relations with many African countries could also be desrcibed as as an early stage of imperialism already now. China is owning oil fields in Nigeria for example, and their relationship with Sudan could also clearly be classified as quasi-imperialist. I mean what is making weapons deals in the hope to exploit Sudan's oil reserves to feed China's booming economy else, than imperialist? Maybe not all conditions of imperialism as described by Lenin already apply, like the dominance of finance capital in China, but that's just a question of time.

It could be also be argued that China is something completely new, some kind of an hybrid of both an a victim and a culprit of imperialism. But I will leave a indepth Marxist analysis on this to someone else. :P