Results 1 to 20 of 31
In your opinion, what should be done with the Darfur problem?
Also, IIRC, the regime in China recently said something along the lines of that the Darfur must be solved by the international community. But why is that in the interest of the Chinese regime?
If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn't need a union
Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz
I don't think the interest of the Chinese regime is human lives, but bringing China to the fore in global economics. However, as Africa and China become closer economically, China will probably treat Africa's problems as its own. Not much different from the US and Latin America.
Here's a good link-
BBC
It's easy to see
Evil as entity
Not as condition
Inside you and me
-Eugene Hutz
The main exporter of Sudanese crude oil is China of course, so why wouldn't they want to stabilize the region for their own economic interests? China has blocked any attempt from the international community to become widely involved in a "humanitarian" intervention there. The only countries that sent armed forces to protect various villages and food distribution is neighboring African nations, which have been proven to be ineffective in these tasks as the killing continues.
What would be the best solution to this problem? Sanctions on the Sudanese and some sort of intervention would be useless, and it would actually kill as many people as the Islamic millitias have killed in the genocide. It would be best to encourage the self defense of the citizens of Darfur, providing arms and millitary advisors in order to protect villages and other regions. Internationally recognizing the self-determination of the region would also be essential in the defeat of the government-backed goons. We have came to a situation in which, though negotiations are important, they have no paticular effect in the haulting of this ethnic clensing.
Look at 'em run, too scared to pull they guns
Outta shape from them coffees and them cinnamon buns
This shit is fun, how I feel when the tables is turned
Dead Prez
The Sudanese government has blocked an international intervention in Darfur.
In the past this had led to full intervention. It ends up rather messy with confused mandates and objectives (this is how the americans first got involved in vietnam).
It is a very interesting issue, one which many of the left will not give much consideration.
The sudan government has effectively told the UN not to interfer; any UN force that attempts to enter shall be treated as an invading army. So what is to be done?
An international force would seem to be the obvious "right thing to do". However, this is effectively imperialism.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
appologies - the above statement is from a nation state point of view.
I suppose a spanish civil war/international militias would be the appealing route to most lefties.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
I say let the African Union handle the situation. Africa's experience with the former colonial powers meddling in their affairs hasn't exactly worked out to well for Africa.
Have the African Union ever solved anything of importance in Africa?
Just curious, don't know much about the AU.
"Workers of the world, awaken! Break your chains, demand your rights! All the wealth you make is taken, by exploiting parasites. Shall you kneel in deep submission from your cradle to your grave? Is the height of your ambition to be a good and willing slave?"
- Joe Hill
The African Union is really fucking up right now. Basically they do nothing. The Janjaweed and the Army keep murdering and raping, the AU doesn't dare to shoot (it's really like that).
Rather UN than AU.
They have helped to establish some negotiations between the government and the Darfur rebels. However, their effect is really limited by their tiny presence, this has made them helpless in the crossfire between the two sides and makes a strong response very difficult.
Problem with AU; too few, poor equipment and effectively been told to leave. So far the best thing they have done is been, to an extent, a deterrent/eye witness.
Problem with UN: past record (bosnia, rowanda). China on the security council: no real interest in human rights, and seems to be happy as long as they get their oil.
I don't understand what seems to be a lack of interest on this site:
The Economist (sep 9th-15th 06) estimates up to 300,000 have died so far and 2 million displaced.
Aid agencies are being targetted daily; 12 killed in past 3 months (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5327866.stm).
Sudanese government seems to be appealing internally to nationalists, and internationally to the "anti-imperialists", by stating that any UN action would be "re-colonialisation". No doubt some on this site agree with this bullshit (as the Economist points out, the same government that said the above, has no problem with a UN force in the south of the country... doesn't take a genious to see why...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5354836.stm
Returning to the topic of aid:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5327866.stm
The suspicion that forces are gathering for an assualt after the AU has left is echoed in the Economist article.
Also, howcome the people who champion the lebanaese/iraqi's havn't been vocal on this issue too? Its effectively the same crimes against humans (if not worse).
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
What is to be done by who, is the question. All this discussion on "to intervene or not to intervene" is from the viewpoint of the ruling classes, discussion what they ought to do. But their armies are not at our disposal, and the working class has no army or independent foreign policy. That's the problem which has to be solved before we can usefully discuss solving the problems of Darfur, etc., etc.
As for the Chinese government's motivations, it's unlikely that Sudan has tremendous economic importance for anyone. Rather, it's significance is the precedent it sets.
The advanced capitalist states are hoping they can reinforce the Yugoslavia precedent of their right to intervene anywhere, anytime under the pretext of stopping human rights violations. And that's exactly what the Chinese government doesn't want, for good and obvious reasons.
so what do you actually advocate at the moment? Would you be against UN intervention?
Personally i'm in favour of intervention when there are gross human rights abuse, and the regional government either can't or refuses to stop/solve the problem. I think the value of human life is above class politics (which do seem to be terribly westphalian... probably the influence of lenin/trotsky).
This situation, in my view, qualifies as one in which intervention is fully justified.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
But, if we send trops into Darfur, isn't that the slipery slope to UN imperialism ?
As i said earlier, "An international force would seem to be the obvious "right thing to do". However, this is effectively imperialism."
Imperialism is essentially the extension of one body's political power and rule over that of another.
So yes, UN action could be described as imperialism of a collective body over a nation state (the sudanese government shall certainly depict any UN action in such a light). Before going off on one though, it is important to question your own politics.
Why exactly are you opposed to imperialism? What, in this case, would be your problem? Is it because you believe in the "soverignty" of a nation?
The fact of the matter is that a large number of people are being abused to the point of murder by their own government. Aid agencies are finding work near to impossible because they are coming under attack. Thus these people essentially have no hope. The thing with UN intervention is that it has a specific mandate and purpose. I doubt "raping the population and selling off the resources" (which, it could be argued, is what the sudanese government is doing) shall be in it. It will be scrutinised by the various elements of the diverse world media too, so if they don't stick to their mandate, everyone will know.
Or on the otherhand you can simply through your hands in the air, shout "no to imperialist war" and be happy seeing thousands of people die. It's much better than "imperialism" afterall.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
I agree with James. Yes, the UN could be considered an imperialistic entity, but one must weigh the outcomes. If we sit back and just theorize about creating a workers revolution in Chad then by the time they're actually able to organize themselves they'll all be dead.
Each person will have their own opinion on the issue, but everybody on this forum is a humanitarian or they wouldn't be here. So, you must ask yourself if it's more important to do nothing so you can say you've never supported the UN, or to insert the UN peacekeeprs into Chad to aid in ending the conflict? I'm not saying that these are the only two options, but that these seem to be the only two immediate options (Unless you want NATO to go in...).
"The only alternative to coexistence is codestruction." - Jawaharlal Nehru
The problem is that the UN and NATO will only go in for imperialist reasons, and actually won't bring any end to the fighting at all. The only ones to benefit would be the imperialists. That's why any intervention by them has to be opposed; otherwise you'll end up with a "humanitarian" mission like the one in Yugoslavia.
The truth is, the workers and farmers in the Sudan are really the only force capable of ending the carnage there.. and making sure it never returns.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
"error coco"
- They will go in if the public pressure is present.
- There are also numerous security reasons for intervention: it is in their interests to have a stable africa and not a situation in which governments are murdering populations and engaging in dodgy arm dealings thus forcing people to leave their country into neighbouring countries. As the bbc article demonstrated such neighbouring nations are struggling already, thus the populations will spill out into other nations - this quite easily leads to africans attempting to cross into spain and portugal and europe. Thus that problem on the other side of the world suddenly becomes a problem here. Then you have immigrant communities with a lacking of skills, or even simple host nation language abilities. Such communities can, with reasonable ease, become hotbeds for further security issues. Such circulations become a further issue when you add the element of arms dealing.
- The UN was set up to stop exactly this kind of thing. (look at their work in the south. Indeed their presence there and role in establishing peace proves your point wrong).
Again, i ask, what is the alternative?
Do people really prefer nothing to happen as long as it means the westphalian system is preserved?
[in regards to the argument; "the workers and farmers in the Sudan are really the only force capable of ending the carnage there.. and making sure it never returns." - this would be funny if it was not so sad. How is a starving people meant to stand up to a national army and airforce which have been supplied by russia, and to a mercenary force armed by the government and effectively given a free run?]
Also, what exactly do you think the UN will gain from entering sudan (beyond spending money, resources and getting shot at)?
Finally, can someone explain what exactly is behind the beef with yugoslavia? There was ethnic conflict going on; people were being murdered (ever after the UN got involed). indeed... many of the individuals who believe the west is engaged in a "crusade against islam" forget that the west intervened in eastern europe to stop the slaughter of muslims.
If it is the "international relations" political point that it allowed intervention; then surely it's time to get over it (the convention of non intervention being now fully broken)?
In effect what you are doing by barking up this tree constantly is shutting the barn door after the horse has left the barn, moved to a different country, got married, had 10 kids and then died.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Did you read the post?
Oh. So Washington and other imperialist powers - possibily with a UN fig leaf - should invade Iraq, where death squads embedded in the army and police are steadily slaughtering hundreds of people?
Oh wait. They're there already. And yet somehow unwilling or unable to stop the "gross human rights abuse." For a long time they pretended there weren't any death squads; they still haven't done anything serious about it.
And somehow "public pressure" has failed to make their intervention humanitarian in reality - not just in rhetoric. Could it be that you can't convert a tiger to vegetarianism?
You dodged CdeL's point. They may well intervene in Sudan - though not because of "public pressure". (It takes a huge, prolonged movement to get 'em out of, say, Vietnam - it would take at least that much to make 'em go in to someplace if they didn't want to.)
But as he pointed out: they will intervene for their own reasons, with their own methods. "Public pressure" can't change that, it never has.
What have been the results of "humanitarian" imperialism over the past several centuries? 'Cause what you're advocating isn't new - it's the same thing Kipling advocated in "The White Man's Burden".
Has all this "humanitarian" imperialism made the world a better place? Has it preserved human life? Nope, imperialism has made a world where tens of thousands die of preventable diseases every day. (And lemme point out most of the deaths in Darfur are from hunger and disease.)
One definition of insanity: to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Well, according to The National tonight, Canada already has military advisors on the ground in Darfur. The Canadian military is also lending the AU military equipment, including APCs and helicopters. In the same story, it said that the AU has extended their stay until at least the end of the year. So it looks like they're expecting more. I couldn't find a source anywhere for this yet, but I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it.
El pueblo unido jamás será vencido
