Darfur, something needs to be done now

[WUOrevolt]

Whats should be done. U.S. military intervention, Un peacekeepers, international force to train victims in self defense? What?

[violencia.Proletariat]

How many people have died in Darfur? 2 million? What about the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 4 million have died and 1000 more die a day. Darfur should not be everyone's concern because a bunch of celebrities took up the cause.

[Phalanx]

The Congo War isn't continuing with the ferocity of the past. Darfur, however, is very different.

We shouldn't ignore a situation like Darfur simply because celebrities have attached themselves to the cause.

I can't believe some here on revleft support the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed isn't fighting imperialism, they're committing genocide on black Darfuris. It's quite disgusting people think a cause like that is worth supporting.

As to the answer, I'm not sure what we could possibly do, but washing a country with arms is usually not the solution, take a look at Somalia.

[Guerrilla22]

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

Here's a good article on why there shouldn't be a US intervention

[Hiero]

I can't believe some here on revleft support the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed isn't fighting imperialism, they're committing genocide on black Darfuris. It's quite disgusting people think a cause like that is worth supporting.

Who supports the Janjaweed on here?

[acg4_9]

the thing about these conflicts that its not black or white its greyish if you look at the region from iraq , lebanon, palestine, algeria, somalia, and sudan. you can't find a good guy... every movement, party, or leader in one way or another has lost intrest in humanity its all becoming lebanon 75-90... politicians are saying one thing and there actions are saying another.. too much hate too much violence.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:55 am

I can't believe some here on revleft support the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed isn't fighting imperialism, they're committing genocide on black Darfuris. It's quite disgusting people think a cause like that is worth supporting.

Who supports the Janjaweed on here?
I think the FPMistas do.

[Janus]

What about the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 4 million have died and 1000 more die a day.
The war in the DROC has really died down and it seems that DROC is on its way to recovering. Sudan is a different affair and though it has lost a lot of media coverage, the problem still remains unresolved.

I definitely wouldn't support a US intervention (not that it's really possible at this point) though a UN force doesn't seem too bad and might be necessary to replace the ineffectual AU force there.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:53 am
Whats should be done. U.S. military intervention, Un peacekeepers, international force to train victims in self defense? What?
Every war is a civil war, this one is no different.

Peace is the only solution, but peace is impossible in a climate of fear and pride. Therefore teaching self-defense is as futile as sending in an army. Violence will guarantee a victor, but not progress, if progress is defined as people co-existing and working cooperatively. The victor will eventually turn on themselves if the issue of fear and pride is not addressed.

The best thing we could do is send them food and building materials with a bunch of blueprints. Then they would need to stop killing and figure out how to start building a society, eventually. Sending arms or soldiers will only escallate the conflict, and spread more fear.

[Janus]

The best thing we could do is send them food and building materials with a bunch of blueprints.
That's usually futile in conflicts such as this in that the government or the stronger side always appropriates the supplies for their own selfish needs. This is why so much charitable aid goes down the drain.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:54 am

The best thing we could do is send them food and building materials with a bunch of blueprints.
That's usually futile in conflicts such as this in that the government or the stronger side always appropriates the supplies for their own selfish needs. This is why so much charitable aid goes down the drain.
I agree, but the leadership needs hardship and the threat of someone to carryout their violent paranoia. Goodwill from your enemy or a third party acts as a wedge that eventually isolates the paranoid leader.

I do not agree that if you cut off the head that the snake will die, but if you take actions to resolve the conflict, rather than escalate it and "enforce" behavior, it will eventually end the conflict and perhaps prevent the next one.

What I am suggesting has never been tried. Billions are spent on the military and destruction (Iraq for example) but little is spent civilian infrastructure. Imagine if every soldier in the world was building homes and factories rather than destroying them. There would be no shortage of housing or goods anywhere. But people choose fear and violence instead, even so called "liberals" and left-wingers.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 01:16 pm
Peace is the only solution, but peace is impossible in a climate of fear and pride. Therefore teaching self-defense is as futile as sending in an army. Violence will guarantee a victor, but not progress, if progress is defined as people co-existing and working cooperatively. The victor will eventually turn on themselves if the issue of fear and pride is not addressed.
Gandhi would be proud of you.

Sadly, his words don't carry too much weight around here.

I think the best plan is to let the countries become seperate. Then again, that's my plan in every civil war situation. But it's the best one.

[Hiero]

Every war is a civil war, this one is no different.

A civil war is a war inside a country or nation. Such as the American Civil War.


Imagine if every soldier in the world was building homes and factories rather than destroying them. There would be no shortage of housing or goods anywhere. But people choose fear and violence instead, even so called "liberals" and left-wingers

You have avoided the conflict entirely. There is no outcome from imagining, there is only outcome from analysing the conflict and then finding the resolution. Why are these people fighting, who are these people, is this national conflict or class conflict?

What you are saying has never been tried, because it is not realistic. You lack class analysis. There is nothing wrong with creating an army or militia. The Cuban and Korean people are safe from imperialism because they have a military. The Black Panthers could work safely in their communities because they had a militia. The proletariat need an armed force for protection.

However when the USA invests in military, it does result in destruction and death. This is because the USA is an imperialist country, they protect their international economy by force. This is bad for the proletariat. And a good reason why US involvment in Darfur should be opposed.

You need to cut with the pacifist philosophical bullshit and look at problems from the Marxist perspective.

[Guerrilla22]

How about allowing the Africans to handle situations on their own continent?

[Janus]

I agree, but the leadership needs hardship and the threat of someone to carryout their violent paranoia. Goodwill from your enemy or a third party acts as a wedge that eventually isolates the paranoid leader.
It's rarely ever going to topple said leader and in this case it will have no effect as the Janjaweed are not part of the formal government.


Billions are spent on the military and destruction (Iraq for example) but little is spent civilian infrastructure. Imagine if every soldier in the world was building homes and factories rather than destroying them. There would be no shortage of housing or goods anywhere.
There are contractors out in Iraq rebuilding the nation's infrastructure however the problem is that they can't do it if they're being shot at. The use of charity as a tool to promote social change can only work if the money actually gets to the people and if it is used responsibly to solve the root of the problem. In civil conflicts such as this, charity can rarely do much besides alleviating suffering for a time.

[stevec]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+December 31, 2006 05:34 am--> (Young Stupid Radical @ December 31, 2006 05:34 am)
[email protected] 30, 2006 01:16 pm
Peace is the only solution, but peace is impossible in a climate of fear and pride. Therefore teaching self-defense is as futile as sending in an army. Violence will guarantee a victor, but not progress, if progress is defined as people co-existing and working cooperatively. The victor will eventually turn on themselves if the issue of fear and pride is not addressed.
Gandhi would be proud of you.

Sadly, his words don't carry too much weight around here.

I think the best plan is to let the countries become seperate. Then again, that's my plan in every civil war situation. But it's the best one. [/b]
Separate but equal is not a solution. Just ask a Native American. Containment is an old strategy, but basically it guarantees perpetual conflict because the disgreement never actually gets settled. It becomes a perpetual state of war, hot and cold.

The strong love the idea of containment because then when they go in for the kill it is easier to do.

Can you imagine a world without borders? Why are lines on a map so important in the minds of men?

The problem is that the leaders in a hierarchial society tend to be morons. More borders create more moronic leaders.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:10 am

There are contractors out in Iraq rebuilding the nation's infrastructure however the problem is that they can't do it if they're being shot at. The use of charity as a tool to promote social change can only work if the money actually gets to the people and if it is used responsibly to solve the root of the problem. In civil conflicts such as this, charity can rarely do much besides alleviating suffering for a time.
The key word there is "rebuilding". Reconstruction always follows a wave of destruction. Bush is such a dolt that he declared victory without declaring peace, and began reconstruction before the destruction was complete.

I am not describing charity. Most charity promotes the problem it is trying to relieve.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. - Thoreau

[Guerrilla22]

It's interesting that people are talking about "rebuilding" Rebuild what? There was never anything there in the first place. Like most colonies, in the Sudan there is a large urban center based around a port and nothing anywhere else, which is a large reason why Africa is so screwed up.

[Andy Bowden]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+December 20, 2006 04:58 pm--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ December 20, 2006 04:58 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 08:55 am

I can't believe some here on revleft support the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed isn't fighting imperialism, they're committing genocide on black Darfuris. It's quite disgusting people think a cause like that is worth supporting.

Who supports the Janjaweed on here?
I think the FPMistas do. [/b]


Really? I seriously doubt that considering the FPM don't support Hizbollah on the basis of their Islamism, the Janjaweed would be even worse.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+December 31, 2006 08:50 pm--> (Andy Bowden @ December 31, 2006 08:50 pm)
Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 20, 2006 04:58 pm

[email protected] 20, 2006 08:55 am

I can't believe some here on revleft support the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed isn't fighting imperialism, they're committing genocide on black Darfuris. It's quite disgusting people think a cause like that is worth supporting.

Who supports the Janjaweed on here?
I think the FPMistas do.


Really? I seriously doubt that considering the FPM don't support Hizbollah on the basis of their Islamism, the Janjaweed would be even worse. [/b]
The FPM most defintely does not support the Janjaweed. Aside from that it's not just the Janjaweed that are committing crimes there, the situation is much more complex than the US media has made it out to be; good vs. evil, or Muslims vs. non-Muslims, which is not the case at all.

[Phalanx]

My mistake, the article I saw was from this (http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=628) site.

[Jacob Peters]

How many people have died in Darfur? 2 million?

Only 9000 have been killed in Darfur according the President Bashir. Allegations that 2 million have been killed is flatulent imperialist propaganda. Mr Bashir continued: "All the figures have been falsified and the child mortality rate in Darfur does not exceed that in Khartoum."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31E...60BD29DEF27.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31E44055-9354-4E87-8773-860BD29DEF27.htm)

After the lies, distortions, and fabrications put forth in every conflict where there has been intervention be it Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc, it is hard to take seriously anything propagated by de facto US government organs Amnesty International and "Human Rights Watch" whose financiers include billionaire oligarch George Soros. The conflict in Darfur has nothing to do with race or religion because everyone in the region speaks Arabic, adheres to Islam, and is biologically negroid. Sudan is not an Arabic country but is instead an African country influenced by Arabic culture. There has been continuous warfare in Sudan since its independence in the 1950s resulting in millions killed. This is not the first time there has been a violent insurrection in the country. The fact is that the international community has not concluded the situation in Darfur to be tantamount to genocide. It would be a blatant violation of international law to invade Sudan without the permission of its legal government as represented at the United Nations. Since African Union troops have been invited into the country, the Sudanese government is genuinely working for peace. It is clearly not to the interests of Sudan's government to have its territory torn apart by warfare. Much of what the imperialist press disseminates about "genocide" in Darfur amounts to concocted fairy tales. The fact is that America and Israel have actively worked to tear apart Sudan through the support and supply of terroristic insurgents in the south and elsewhere in the country. Because Darfur is a purely internal matter, it is not a threat to international peace. Hence, western imperialists cloaked in the United Nations have no right to intervene. The aim is ultimately to seize Sudan's vast natural resources.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 08:09 pm
It's interesting that people are talking about "rebuilding" Rebuild what? There was never anything there in the first place. Like most colonies, in the Sudan there is a large urban center based around a port and nothing anywhere else, which is a large reason why Africa is so screwed up.
Regardless of what was or wasn't there before the war, it is destroyed in war, and rebuilding takes place afterwards.

In every society, the war stops only when the capacity to wage war has been exhausted. The war stops, but not the hatred and paranoia that fed it. That remains, and when the capacity to wage war again presents itself, so too do the justifications.

A lot of the analysis around here is based on imperialism and class-warfare, which is really a flawed analysis, I believe. War is the result of hierarchial societies. It doesn't matter who is at the top, King, Pope, President, CEO; the competition to get to the top requires a grand ambition, and that ambition never ends. Big Brother needs his cause, and after he vanquishes his domestic enemies he creates foreign ones. (Often foreign ones are the justification originally as to why he should be trusted. For example, Nixon and Reagan formented the fear of Communism to get elected President. Hitler created the fear of the Jews, gypsies and non-aryans. Lenin created the fear of the Tsar. Stalin the fear of the people, etc.) To understand war you need to understand the nature of fear.

The war in every country is led by the same personality types, be they rebel or authority. That is why every war is a civil war. Wars are created by fear and pride.

"True" religion, in contrast, is about not being afraid. "Turn the other cheek," "love your enemy," etc., are non-threatening positions physically, but emotionally they are very difficult for people to accept. They are used to hating their enemy and have established all kinds of justifications intellectually why they should hate and fear their enemy. Blind leaders have blind followers. Without the selling of fear or pride they are nothing. In the bush of Africa there are all kinds of superstitions, and the nature of fear is the same.

The purpose of giving building materials or food would only be to create a climate of trust.

[phoenixoftime]

Ideally you would replace the AU force with a substantially equipped UN Peacekeeping force, complete with reconstruction teams and WFP support. The problem is that the government won't allow a UN force, claiming it is a risk to their sovereignty etc.

The best option now is to support the AU force logistically and financially as much as possible. If you want to send humanitarian aid then use NGOs. But, without actually invading Sudan, there isn't much else you can do. Unless you wanted to violate international law in other ways, such as sending in secret service operatives or whatever.

[Jacob Peters]

Whats should be done. U.S. military intervention

Of course not. This would be tantamount to a recolonization of Sudan which was the first Sub-Saharan African country to attain independence. Without the permission of the legal Sudanese government, US intervention would be an invasion and therefore a serious violation of the UN Charter.

The United Nations Charter could be found here for all to read. Please read it before calling for something absurd like invading a country:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


international force to train victims in self defense?

It would be a gross violation of international law and Sudan's sovereignty and territorial integrity to have a presence in the country without the formal approval of Sudan's legal authority.

The sole cause of the conflict is unwarranted US and Israeli meddling in the internal affairs of the Sudanese people. Please do not be fooled into accepting the distorted presentation in the situation in Darfur as racial war between "Janjaweed" and black Africans because that simply is not the case. The truth is that the terrorists of "Sudanese Liberation Army" are largely to blame for the current conflict. David Rolde documents the situation and how these western surrogates which have been persistent in refusing a peace deal are largely to blame:

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

And here ultra Neo-Con William Kristol from the "Project for a New American Century" is openly agitating for an invasion of Sudan. He too lies about the situation in Darfur as being tantamount to genocide despite the conclusion from the international community that this simply is not the case.

The United States will eventually act on Darfur. After the election President Bush or President Kerry will not sit by and permit the second genocide in Africa in a decade. We will intervene -- belatedly.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/darfur-20040922.htm

[RNK]

How about allowing the Africans to handle situations on their own continent?

Tell that to the colonial and imperialist powers that have raped Africa for the past 200 years. They have absolutely no problem interfering when they gain something from it, but when it comes time to interfere for the betterment of Africans only, they're nowhere to be found!

[YSR]

Originally posted by stevec
Can you imagine a world without borders? Why are lines on a map so important in the minds of men?

The problem is that the leaders in a hierarchial society tend to be morons. More borders create more moronic leaders.

Oh calm down, there's no need to make a speech.

I support "Balkanization" or whatever for pragmatic reasons. If countries are allowed to break apart into smaller states, the principle of free association can be more easily explained and understood. Why associate myself with Whateveristan if it just chose to break away from Whereveria last year? Why can't I do the same thing? (Maybe David Graeber is right, everyone is an anarchist at heart.)


A lot of the analysis around here is based on imperialism and class-warfare, which is really a flawed analysis, I believe.

Well, that's nice for you. (for the record, I'm not so sure about the imperialism thing myself. But I'm a white man from the U.S., which might contribute to this perspective of mine.)


War is the result of hierarchial societies. It doesn't matter who is at the top, King, Pope, President, CEO; the competition to get to the top requires a grand ambition, and that ambition never ends.

Agreed.


The war in every country is led by the same personality types, be they rebel or authority. That is why every war is a civil war. Wars are created by fear and pride.

Not really. Wars are created by conflict between two groups. Maybe that conflict is between the ruling classes of two different countries. Maybe that conflict is between the ruling class and the working class (this is my favorite kind.) War, like anything else, lacks an inherent moral quality.


True" religion, in contrast, is about not being afraid. "Turn the other cheek," "love your enemy," etc., are non-threatening positions physically, but emotionally they are very difficult for people to accept. They are used to hating their enemy and have established all kinds of justifications intellectually why they should hate and fear their enemy.

Preaching is only allowed in the Religion subforum of Opposing Ideologies. We restrict people who preach.

[Lawton]

The United States or it's allies should not be intervening, at all. This is a matter of African unity. Therefore, who better to tackle the problem than the African Union? The African Union has shown it is more than willing.

The United States is trying to get more and more influence around the world, but it's attempts are failing, Darfur shows this.

[Guerrilla22]

Yet liberals have been screaming for uS military intervention fo some time now, It's clear that they don't understand the dynamics of US militaary interventions.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 am
Yet liberals have been screaming for uS military intervention fo some time now, It's clear that they don't understand the dynamics of US militaary interventions.
The magic of doublethink.
This war is bad, but that war is good.

People don't understand that Orwell was talking TO them, not ABOUT other people.


http://behappyandfree.com/templates/new_westminster/images/testmain_03.jpg

[phoenixoftime]

This is a matter of African unity. Therefore, who better to tackle the problem than the African Union? The African Union has shown it is more than willing.

Indeed. But the AU is woefully under-resourced - only 7 000 troops - so it will be important to now pressure the Sudanese govt into accepting as large and well-equipped force as possible. Although they have now accepted a UN plan for a hybrid UN-AU force in light of sanction threats, they still appear to be dragging their feet.

[Janus]

Although they have now accepted a UN plan for a hybrid UN-AU force in light of sanction threats, they still appear to be dragging their feet.
Since the new UN chief is pledging immediate attention to the Darfur situation, we'll have to wait and see how that goes. But if some sort of decision is reached, it's definitely going to be stripped further due to Russian and Chinese support of the Sudanese gov.