Darfur - What should be done?

[tecumseh]

A leading Democratic senator submitted a resolution calling for the appointment of a special US envoy to Sudan and the creation of a no-fly zone in the country's violence-wracked Darfur region.

"The situation in Darfur has spiraled out of control. Since the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement on May 5, violence has increased exponentially," said US Senator Joseph Biden.

"Fifty thousand people have been displaced in the past two months. Two hundred women have been raped over the past five weeks -- two hundred more have been violently assaulted," Biden said. "We cannot stand by and let further tragedy unfold."

http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/200...uld-create.html

[James]

Did you read the post?

Yes i did.
In response to the "solution" given I stated: "[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?]
"

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.

Compare that to bosnia/kosovo: the mass murder did stop there. The example i just gave is more representative of what i proposed should happen once the other chanels have been exhausted. The Coalition invasion of iraq was dressed up as humanitarian intervention (especially now, following the discrediting of their other justifications). Nor was it UN sanctioned.

The example you give is a classic example of how not to intervene. It does not however mean that all intervention will be done on the same grounds, for the same reasons, or have the same results. To suggest so is simply bending the truth to fit your conclusion.

See what i said earlier in another post about establishing clear mandates, purposes and goals of intervention forces. The sheer lack of planning and over all direction of the iraq "intervention" is why it is such an appaling "attempt". Indeed, the fact that it was so poorly planned suggests strongly that humanitarian interests were simply not there or very low down on the list of priorities. Thus discrediting the relevence of it to the topic further (beyond "how not to do it").

A question for you (and those who share you position): Do you think the "imperial" AU should leave sudan?
And to those who advocate "military advisors" and military aid to "the oppressed": surely this is still "imperialism", but simply not direct?

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?

Governments in "the west" are, broadly speaking, democratic. They rely heavily on the people's consent and support. Thus people's interests have to be paid attention to by those seeking election or re-election. With a relatively free and wide ranging media that covers international as well as national events, such interests invariably focus on international events. The image of a child dieing usually strikes a cord. Tsunami - governments had to get involved.
So yes, governments can act when the public demands it.

Thing is though many people are concerned about costs and benifits, and the morality of intervening (like you: although you would describe it as "rational" philosophy no doubt). Hence why this factor can be weak.

You dodged CdeL's point. They may well intervene in Sudan - though not because of "public pressure".

Not really. I admit self interest.
My example of home security is a rather "selfish" motivation, yet a motivation non the less that benifits others. Unless of course you think people being starved to death and murdered by governments is a "good thing"

Are you saying it shouldn't happen at all because there will be a degree of self-interest?

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".

I'm well aware of that.

Are you saying that there has never been a worthwhile intervention?

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.

Bit of a sweeping generalisation don't you think?
It has been "bad", and it has been "good". "Imperial" actions have also improved lives, even though "anti-imperialists" will never admit this. No doubt such individuals would argue that a modern hitler should be allowed to do what he wants; to intervene would be "imperial", thus bad.


Take the example of the Roman empire (simply to question the rather base assumptions regarding imperialism that are popular at the moment). You tried to claim that imperialism decreases the quality of life of people: it stalls the spread of medicine and simple things like that etc. In fact, the roman empire vastly improved the quality of life for thousands; sanitation and peace was spread. Hence why the empire was so popular with many of those who lived on its borders (thus the immigration: a factor often ignored in base/popular histories and assumptions regarding the "fall of rome").

Therefore Rome is a good example that proves wrong your rhetorically rich, yet poor in substance, assumption of;
"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."
After the roman empire fell "standard of living" (e.g. cures and treatment of preventable diseases) declined and it took "us" a good 1000 years to get back to.

As you said:

(And lemme point out most of the deaths in Darfur are from hunger and disease.)

EXACTLY!
And aid agencies are being prevented from helping these people because of the government's actions.

It IS possible to stop the deaths: people are dieing because of a lack of food (food can be brought to them if it has protection), lack of medication (again: this exists. it can be brought to them) and because they are being murdered (because there is no one there to threaten them with force if they do it).

Where do you draw the line anyway between imperialism within "national borders" - i.e. the power of a state within imagined boundaries, justified simply because of the westphalian treaty; and imperialism outside of "national borders"?

Imperialism (i.e. the use of force; that is essentially what it is, within the westphalian context) can be "benevolent". Indeed you seem to be missing the whole point of "humanitarian" intervention (or imperialism if you define it like that).

It allows humanitarian aid to come through and reach the people; it protects the transportation of aid.
It can stop the mass murder of people by simply implanting armed peacekeepers with an actual mandate.

Often in these cases mass murder happens because those committing it know that they can get away with it: "no one is going to do anything".

One definition of insanity: to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Yes you are right actually.
Letting people die and be murdered is much more sane.

And the best thing about it is that it is possible to justify such inaction by philosophical ramblings, so one can quite easily wash the spot away.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm just trying to figure out where all these people with positions of the 2nd international during WW1 came from.

[Kez]

Aright James our kid, how we doin? long time since i heard from you, hope things are well etc.

Now to your post.

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?

If your point is that logistically they cannot do this, then cant we bring about examples where a vastly superior imperialist enemy was battered by a much worse equipped army or even a sham outfit of an army?

Examples being:

Algeria vs France
Afghanastan vs USSR
Afghanastan vs USA (today)
Vietnam vs China/France/USA (yes it has defeated all 3 enemies seperately)

I think the issue with why it is so difficult in Sudan is due to lack or organisation rather than logistics
e.g no co-ordination such as a political party or unions (something for anarchists to bear in mind)

If the people were organised, the army could be defeated, the issue is how do they get organised, and organise around what??

See what i said earlier in another post about establishing clear mandates, purposes and goals of intervention forces. The sheer lack of planning and over all direction of the iraq "intervention" is why it is such an appaling "attempt". Indeed, the fact that it was so poorly planned suggests strongly that humanitarian interests were simply not there or very low down on the list of priorities. Thus discrediting the relevence of it to the topic further (beyond "how not to do it").

Since when did imperialists give a direct plan of action for a mandate? Remember we actually went into Iraq for WMDs lol, that was the mandate, and people supported going in iraq for that reason. Do you trust a capitalist state to keep its promises?

A question for you (and those who share you position): Do you think the "imperial" AU should leave sudan?

My answer would be yes, these neighbouring countries and the AU simply want a piece of the action.

Governments in "the west" are, broadly speaking, democratic. They rely heavily on the people's consent and support. Thus people's interests have to be paid attention to by those seeking election or re-election.

Or a government would get the gutter press to change the peoples agenda and thinking?? Note the Sun during start of the Iraq war? Same with all other papers, including the guardian...

With a relatively free and wide ranging media that covers international as well as national events, such interests invariably focus on international events.

Free and wide ranging? I do seem to remember the BBC firing two iraqi journalists before the iraqi war.

And i dont quite think the coverage of whats being going on in latin america is quite free and wide ranging...maybe im being harsh on murdoch and his coverage of world events...

So yes, governments can act when the public demands it.

- Such as 70% opposing the war in iraq?
- Such as the majority of people in britain opposing pension reforms and NHS reforms?

Are you saying that there has never been a worthwhile intervention?

If there have been any, there has always been a better, revolutionary and JUST alternative which obviously has not been taken.

Take the example of the Roman empire (simply to question the rather base assumptions regarding imperialism that are popular at the moment). You tried to claim that imperialism decreases the quality of life of people: it stalls the spread of medicine and simple things like that etc. In fact, the roman empire vastly improved the quality of life for thousands; sanitation and peace was spread. Hence why the empire was so popular with many of those who lived on its borders (thus the immigration: a factor often ignored in base/popular histories and assumptions regarding the "fall of rome").

What an awful point. The Roman empire, an example of "good imperialism" as it were you describe...was around in PRE CAPITALIST times. Marx explained that imperialism DOES have its palce to play in human development. However, its role was PRE capitalist development, and thats where it should stay. Its role is redundant, and that is why any socialist, even ANY progressive person, should see that imperialisms role in the time of capitalist development IS REDUNDANT and should not be supported.

James, you say that people here are confusing humanitarian aid and imperialism. However, this is only because of in the past, when initially a force has come in through humanitarian reasons (which i am not opposed to in principle, just in the context of today and the examples given), it has ultimately turned into a level within which political force has also come through. examples of this are Bosnia, Kosovo, (forgive me if im wrong, cant remember, werent they also in Korea? or was it just the UN line?), theyve reinforced the turkish invasion in Cyprus, and its interesting to see what happens in other countries. It is no wonder other places like Nagorno-Karabagh, nobody wants UN forces.

Of course, as marxists, we oppose such brutalities in Sudan, but as a point, as a principle, which should oppose imperialist forces to enter a state.

[Comrade-Z]

Compare that to bosnia/kosovo: the mass murder did stop there.

The fundamental problems have not been resolved in the least in that region--because only those living there will ultimately be able to solve them! Peace and democracy are something that must be taken by participants. They can never be simply bestowed upon others, nor can they ever fall into the laps of others. Very soon that peace and democracy will be usurped by aspiring rulers, unless the people living there stand up for themselves.

How do you get them to stand up for themselves? What did it take to get people in Europe to stand up for themselves against kings and religious strife? That's what will need to happen in Africa. Liberal capitalism is not something that can just be willed into existence, contrary to the desires and habits of the people making up the society in question.

It does not however mean that all intervention will be done on the same grounds

Do you think it is physically, quantum mechanically possible for the ruling class to consciously act against its own self-interest, spend its resources, and help people out of sheer benevolence or care for their well-being, when they will gain nothing from it other than the praise of bourgeois liberal college student activists?

A question for you (and those who share you position): Do you think the "imperial" AU should leave sudan?

I'm not all that familiar with the AU, but assuming it follows the pattern, I would say yes, it should leave the Sudan.

What people don't realize is that these crises don't perpetuate themselves of their own accord, independent of the desires of individuals. These situations develop out of the conscious actions of individuals. For instance, I would ask: how does the Sudanese government get its funding? Through taxes? If so, then the Sudanese people should stop paying their taxes en masse if they want the government to crumble and the violence to stop. It is entirely within the capability of the Sudanese people to end this conflict by their own efforts (or even non-efforts), just as it is entirely within the capability of the people of the U.S. to end capitalism by their own efforts (or even non-efforts). This stuff should be easy. This stuff should be a no-brainer. You want the fighting to stop in your country? Go on indefinite strike with millions of other people in your country. Ditto with capitalism. But the reality is that there are people in the Sudan who find the current situation quite acceptable, or at least acceptable enough so that they do not feel compelled to do whatever drastic and far-reaching thing that would be required to do in order to end the fighting. "But it's impossible! The farmers are having their food stolen at gunpoint!" And French peasants in 1788 weren't?

Governments in "the west" are, broadly speaking, democratic.

You must live in a dream-world. Here, take the red pill.

They rely heavily on the people's consent and support.

I wouldn't quite go that far. More like tacit, apathetic acceptance. It's not like our rulers eagerly listen to what we have to say (despite however much they may try to pretend to do so).

Thus people's interests have to be paid attention to by those seeking election or re-election.

Only in order to inform our rulers of the proper manner of lying to us so that we are placated and duped.

Thing is though many people are concerned about costs and benifits

You see, that's the thing. In reality, most people don't give a shit about what happens in Darfur, and why should they, looking at it from a standpoint of self-interest and forgetting the fairy tale of "morality" or the moment? How have the events in Darfur affected you personally? They haven't, really. At least, not as much as that new bicycle you bought the other day. I bet if you asked people "Are you personally willing to donate $1000 to the Darfur relief fund?" they would say, "No way!" Even those liberal "do-gooder" college student activists (who are everywhere around here where I'm at) would balk at such a proposal. Yet, when you suggest a U.S. or U.N. intervention (with a large U.S. contingent), that's what you are talking about--$30 billion+, which comes down to over $1000 per person!

The people of Sudan and Darfur need to solve their own problems. When their problems become my problems (such as when Sudan is invaded by U.N. imperialism), then I'll give more thought to this issue.

[Severian]

Originally posted by James+Sep 21 2006, 05:05 AM--> (James @ Sep 21 2006, 05:05 AM)

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.

Compare that to bosnia/kosovo: the mass murder did stop there. [/b]

Yeah, eventually. After years in which the "international community" worsened and prolonged the bloodshed. Different powers backed different sides, fighting out their own rivalries with Yugoslav blood.

The arms embargo aided Milosevic, and Washington let just enough weapons through to keep Sarajevo in the fight - but still besieged. The worst ethnic cleansing occurred after the bombing of Kosova started, etc.

Of course Washington's clients - the Croatian regime, the Kosova Liberation Army, etc. - carried out their own ethnic cleansing campaigns. In Kosova, right under the noses of the NATO occupiers.

And as Comrade-Z points out: nothing's been resolved, and the conventional wisdom universally says the conflict will resume as soon as the occupation ends.

And even if the Yugoslavia intervention was such a shining humanitarian success - would that be a good reason for you to ignore inconvenient examples like Iraq?

The Coalition invasion of iraq was dressed up as humanitarian intervention (especially now, following the discrediting of their other justifications).

Which is all any intervention is, dressed up as humanitarian. States act on their interests.

Nor was it UN sanctioned.

So? Do you think that makes any difference to Iraqis? Do you think sticking a blue UN flag on the Iraq occupation would change anything? Delusional, if so.

The example you give is a classic example of how not to intervene. It does not however mean that all intervention will be done on the same grounds, for the same reasons, or have the same results.....See what i said earlier in another post about establishing clear mandates, purposes and goals of intervention forces. The sheer lack of planning and over all direction of the iraq "intervention" is why it is such an appaling "attempt". Indeed, the fact that it was so poorly planned suggests strongly that humanitarian interests were simply not there or very low down on the list of priorities.

But you are proposing intervention be carried out by the same ruling classes. You don't get to pick their motives or methods. You don't get to plan it.

All you can do is to provide political cover to help Washington, Paris, etc....do what they choose.

To suggest so is simply bending the truth to fit your conclusion.

Couldn't that be more accurately be said of someone who declares inconvenient examples irrelevant?

A question for you (and those who share you position): Do you think the "imperial" AU should leave sudan?

The AU is not made up of imperialist* governments, obviously. But its intervention is imperialist-sponsored and serves imperialist interests, so yes.

*I'm using "imperialism" in the sense communists have used the term since Lenin wrote "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" - the most advanced capitalist countries, with highly concentrated finance capital, seeking to divide up the world market, exporting capital through investment and loans, economically exploiting the rest of the world...

That's the basis of the communist position of opposing all military interventions by those advanced capitalist countries - because it perpetuates those finance capitalists' domination of the world.

So your Roman empire argument is aimed at a straw man; communists don't oppose all military interventions, ever, obviously! (It's a wacky example for you to use, anyway - whatever else you can say about the Romans, nobody ever called 'em humanitarian or merciful.) Prior to the beginning of the 20th century, communists didn't even automatically oppose all wars by the main European powers.

And to those who advocate "military advisors" and military aid to "the oppressed": surely this is still "imperialism", but simply not direct?

I agree, if it's done by imperialists. People have the right to get weapons and training anywhere they can, of course.

But for people in the imperialist countries to advocate that "our" governments send aid - that's still looking to them for solutions.

Governments in "the west" are, broadly speaking, democratic. They rely heavily on the people's consent and support.

No, that's not what bourgeois democracy is. The main advantage of bourgeois democracy is freedom to criticize and organize - it's only somewhat more responsive to public sentiment. Only when that public sentiment is mobilized in a massive and prolonged way can it force a change in foreign policy.

You're ignoring history, like the Vietnam example I gave. Your illusions say "democratic" governments will be responsive to public opinion - so you ignore reality.

Are you saying that there has never been a worthwhile intervention?

Nah. You might be able to find an exception, with seemingly positive results, if you look hard enough.

What I am saying is that after centuries of "humanitarian" empire-building - the balance sheet is overwhelmingly negative. To the degree that say, the British Empire may at first have played a progressive role in spreading capitalism - it was incredibly brutal and bloody in its methods, not "humanitarian" at all!

Suppose you find a positive-seeming example. How can you know Sudan would be another? The odds say the opposite.

EXACTLY!
And aid agencies are being prevented from helping these people because of the government's actions.

Is that the only reason? Is that why tens of thousands die every day, all over the world, from preventable diseases?

War has always contributed greatly to famine and disease, to be sure. Especially when there are a lot of refugees in camps. (So from a humanitarian viewpoint among other reasons, it's important to demand asylum for refugees.)

But if this war was happening in a different social and economic context - one not so extremely underdeveloped - would there be nearly so much hunger and disease?

Your offended by some of the horrors of the world - but why not think a little more deeply about their causes?

Where do you draw the line anyway between imperialism within "national borders" - i.e. the power of a state within imagined boundaries, justified simply because of the westphalian treaty; and imperialism outside of "national borders"?

Imperialism (i.e. the use of force; that is essentially what it is, within the westphalian context) can be "benevolent".

Yeah, see, you're trying to shoehorn the communist position into some debate within establishment politics about the "westphalian" whatever. If that's the debate you want to have, why are you even on this board?

But as long as you're here, at least try to understand a little what you're arguing against.

Communists have never regarded borders as sacred any more than anyone else does in practice. Heck, we're fighting for a world without borders.

National sovereignty is sometimes a useful tool for opposing the imperialist ruling classes, that's all. And communists are careful about crossing borders militarily ourselves, because it can produce a nationalist reaction and make us look like invaders and imperialists.

(Done wrong; Afghanistan. Done right: Angola - where the Cuban forces were invited and came primarily to fight against a foreign invader, not primarily in a civil war.)

Indeed you seem to be missing the whole point of "humanitarian" intervention (or imperialism if you define it like that).

It allows humanitarian aid to come through and reach the people; it protects the transportation of aid. It can stop the mass murder of people by simply implanting armed peacekeepers with an actual mandate.

Sound exactly like the stated justification for the Somalia intervention - were the results so wonderful there? Truth is, in that case the intervention came as the famine was already ending....

Severian

You dodged CdeL's point. They may well intervene in Sudan - though not because of "public pressure"......But as he pointed out: they will intervene for their own reasons, with their own methods.

Not really. I admit self interest.

Look at that! You dodged it again! It's my central point too, and you've dodged it throughout the thread.

You don't control how they intervene. You don't control what they do once they get there. Their motives are not humanitarian - and so their methods won't be.

[James]

Appologies for not replying sooner, i couldn't connect to the site and now i've gone back to uni so don't have nearly as much time as i had before (hence why i'm going to attempt to conclude my argument - i know this may seem like "dodging the issue" or "admitting defeat", but in reality it is simply a case of me not having free time anymore).

With regards to kosovo and iraq.
I think it is quite clear that the reasons for intervention were quite different in these two cases. True you may brand them "self interest", but we wern't disagreeing about this: i argued that humanitarian intervention can also benifit the participating nations and international community (mainly security implications, and of course- a return to a stable market, so aye, there is a financial element. However I personally don't subscribe to marxist theory; so our take on the above will be quite different).
I wasn't ignoring iraq - Iraq was "intervention", but it was hardly humanitarian intervention. Indeed they only dressed it up as such afterwards when they couldn't find a better justification. The reasons were countless, and partly depend on what side your taking. For example take the kurdish perspective: there has been a form of intervention on their behalf since the first gulf war (for example the no fly zone). Arguably the kurds will look at the iraq intervention quite differently to the US, or you.
I digress... Yes iraq was intervention, but it was not humanitarian intervention. I do not believe that because some interventions are "bad"; all are. Here we disagree completely, which is fair enough. Neither of us will change our minds.
I think kosovo and iraq are fundamentally different: you clearly don't. Fair enough.

On the subject of Rome.
I didn't use it as an example of humanitarian intervention. It was in response to your argument that nothing good could can come from imperialism. You argued that people are dieing and have died, because imperialism in some way stops the circulation of medicine and knowledge. The roman empire was my example of how imperialism dramatically improved the health of its "subject peoples".

Lets link this back to darfur:
People are dieing for two main reasons. (a) Due to state sponsored direct murder (use of the sudanese state army, airforce and mercanaries) and because, as you pointed out, (b) basic things are being denied - such as clean water, mediction and food.
You need to understand that my argument is based around these two factors. It is also important to recognise that i'm not a marxist, so am not thinking like a marxist.

I think that if the sudanese government doesn't ;
A) stop killing it's own people
B) doesn't allow aid to come through
- then action needs to be taken either by the AU or UN. Firstly, to act as peacekeepers/guardians (i.e. to protect the people from murder) and secondly to ensure that aid gets through to the people. As i pointed out before, the aid agencies are struggling to carry out their work because they are being attacked. They need to be defended. And as you pointed out: many people are going to die probably due to a lack of medicine and food: the kind of stuff that the aid agencies are trying to get through.

The fact that the sudanese government has no problem with a UN presence in the south of the country demonstrates that their argument that any intervnetion in the west would be "re-colonialisation" is mere emotive bullshit designed to appeal to those who consider themselves staunch "anti imperialists".

That is my position (i appreciate that yours is slighlty similar - instead of the UN you advocate the AU and non-western state bodies; which is fair enough. AU would be better - but they do need to be beefed up a bit).
Sadly i'm out of time so can't reply line for line, although i think it wouldn't really be worth it either as we fundamentally differ philosophically; look how we define imperialism differently; and our simple differences in opinion: you don't think democratic governments will be responsive to public opinion - i do. As you said: "Yeah, see, you're trying to shoehorn the communist position into some debate within establishment politics about the "westphalian" whatever. If that's the debate you want to have, why are you even on this board?" - very true, I feel the same about your response to my argument. Point taken - james needs to move on)

[Severian]

Originally posted by James@Sep 25 2006, 05:47 AM
Appologies for not replying sooner, i couldn't connect to the site and now i've gone back to uni so don't have nearly as much With regards to kosovo and iraq.
I think it is quite clear that the reasons for intervention were quite different in these two cases. True you may brand them "self interest", but we wern't disagreeing about this: i argued that humanitarian intervention can also benifit the participating nations and international community (mainly security implications, and of course- a return to a stable market, so aye, there is a financial element.

What "security interest" in Yugoslavia, or Sudan? If there was any real "security interest", they wouldn't need to use the "humanitarian" excuse. E.g. it was decidedly secondary in Afghanistan.

I wasn't ignoring iraq - Iraq was "intervention", but it was hardly humanitarian intervention. Indeed they only dressed it up as such afterwards when they couldn't find a better justification.

And in other cases, they dress it up beforehand. That's all "humantarian" intervention ever is.

Why would that make any difference for the results of intervention?

If you're going to make this into an argument for intervention in Sudan...you'd need to examine what the interests would be behind an intervention there.

It was in response to your argument that nothing good could can come from imperialism. You argued that people are dieing and have died, because imperialism in some way stops the circulation of medicine and knowledge. The roman empire was my example of how imperialism dramatically improved the health of its "subject peoples".

And as I said, this is a straw man, because the Roman empire is not "imperialism" in the sense communists now use the term. Because the Roman Empire had some progressive effects in terms of increasing trade and the spread of ideas - has nothing to do with assessing the economic effects of the domination of the modern world by First World finance capital. Which dates roughly from the beginning of the 20th century.

It is also important to recognise that i'm not a marxist, so am not thinking like a marxist.

Never woulda guessed. But if you start from facts, and reason from there, some dialogue is still possible.

The fact that the sudanese government has no problem with a UN presence in the south of the country

Is that a fact? Do they have no problem with it, or were they pressured into accepting it?

(i appreciate that yours is slighlty similar - instead of the UN you advocate the AU and non-western state bodies; which is fair enough.

Nope. You must be mixing me up with someone else.

As you said: "Yeah, see, you're trying to shoehorn the communist position into some debate within establishment politics about the "westphalian" whatever. If that's the debate you want to have, why are you even on this board?" - very true, I feel the same about your response to my argument. Point taken - james needs to move on)

Well, we could usefully discuss if the communist perspective is correct, though we'd have to take up some of those fundamentals....just don't try to have the same argument you would have with a capitalist "westphalian" or pacifist.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Severian@Sep 20 2006, 12:19 AM
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.

Yes... I saw Kofi Annan was almost bowled over by the rush to send soldiers or assets to Darfur. The Chinese aren't holding up Western intervention but rather Western indifference is.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by "Severian"
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.

Defenetly not true.

Sudan is one of China's major targets in it's growing imperialist ambitions. Sudan is one of Africa's major oil suppliers.

See http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

China's voracious demand for energy to feed its booming economy has led it to seek oil supplies from African countries including Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea.

Sudan. Sudanese production and export of light, sweet crude—the most easily refined, and therefore most desirable, oil—have risen rapidly in the last few years, with Sudan's Energy Ministry reporting production of some 500,000 barrels per day in 2005 despite internal upheaval, including the unrest in the northern region of Darfur. Sudan has proven reserves of some 563 million barrels of oil, with the potential for far more in regions of the country made inaccessible by conflict. Sudan is one of the world's poorest countries.

Sudan. China has sold the Islamic government in Khartoum weapons and $100 million worth of Shenyang fighter planes, including twelve supersonic F-7 jets, according to the aerospace industry journal Aviation Week and Space Technology. Experts say any military air presence exercised by the government—including the helicopter gunships reportedly used to terrorize civilians in Darfur—comes from China.

China's hypocritical stance becomes quiet clear here. It has become a competing imperiaist power, it's motiviations are clearly national, economical inteterests.

[Janus]

Sudan is one of China's major targets in it's growing imperialist ambitions. Sudan is one of Africa's major oil suppliers.

Right, this explains why the PRC is blocking UN measures on Sudan. Whether the West likes it or not, the PRC is becoming an growing player on the world stage.