quote:

---

Why Sudan is now allowing UN troops in Darfur
Sudan announced Monday it would allow 3,000 international peacekeepers in, leading the US and Britain to increase pressure.

Link to article

---

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

quote:

---

18 April 2007
Darfur: The great sacrifice

As the situation in Darfur deteriorates, with reports of the regime using military planes disguised as UN aircraft bombing villages, international, particularly US inaction removes the last chance for millions of innocent civilians.

By Jen Alic for ISN Security Watch (18/04/07)

The government of Sudan is said to be disguising military planes as UN and African Union (AU) aircraft in order to fly arms into its troubled Darfur region and to bomb villages, the New York Times News Service reports, citing an unpublished UN report.

The UN Security Council committee report is said to provide photos of one example of a white-washed Sudanese military plane with the UN logo stenciled on its side parked at an airport in Darfur, while rows of bombs wait to be loaded.

The disguised planes are said to be leaving from Darfur's three main airports.

While the report focuses much of its attention on the Sudanese government, it asserts that rebel groups fighting the Khartoum government are also guilty of violating Security Council resolutions, peace treaty agreements and humanitarian standards.

The UN recommends tightening the arms embargo on all sides: the government in Khartoum and the rebel groups fighting it.

The leaked report comes shortly after Khartoum announced on Monday that it would no longer object to having the UN assist the small, 7,000-strong AU peacekeeping mission in Darfur with 7,000 troops and aviation and logistics support. However, it remains unclear whether Khartoum will ever agree to the proposed 21,000-strong AU-UN force. ...

---

quote:

---

Darfur Peacekeeping Deal Met with Cautious Welcome
Haider Rizvi OneWorld US

UNITED NATIONS, April 18 (OneWorld) - Though satisfied with the Sudanese decision to allow United Nations forces into Darfur, international civil society groups engaged in humanitarian efforts in the violence-wracked region say they wonder if Khartoum will keep its promises of cooperation with the world body.

"We see this latest agreement as a positive step," said Howard Salter, spokesperson for Citizens for Global Solutions, a Washington, DC-based foreign policy advocacy organization. "But we are cautiously optimistic, due to the fact that the Sudanese government has backed away from prior agreements."

....

---

A lot of people who support the Afghan mission would ask you a similar question that you asked me.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

Why is the Left ok with militarism when it comes to Darfur (or Kosovo) but not in the case of Afghanistan or Iraq?

---

If you refer to any intervention anywhere in the world as "militarism" then I assume you are a total pacifist and that you oppose any use of military force under any circumstances anywhere in the world. I can respect that if there are NO EXCEPTIONS at all (ie: the JS Woodsworth or the Quaker line on combating Hitler through non-violent sit-ins).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
so, you prefer that we do nothing and let the genocide happen?

---

The fact that only the U.S. [ETA: and Stephen Harper] calls the Darfur situation "genocide" is prima facie evidence that it is anything but.

Why do you throw that word around as if it's meaningless?

ETA: Here's a list of those who call it genocide and those who have rejected that word. You can decide for yourself which group you'd rather be in. Hint: It's an easy choice. As one whose family was a victim of one of the real genocides of the last century, I frankly find your use of the word distasteful and insulting - besides the fact that it makes it impossible to point the way to a solution of the strife in that country.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

The International Association of Genocide Scholars
Committee on Conscience of the US Holocaust Museum
A UNANIMOUS vote of the US congress including all the most ultra-liberal members of Congress
Yad Vashem
Physicians for Human Rights
Genocide Watch

quote:

---

Genocide Watch is an international organization based in the United States which attempts to predict, prevent, limit, eliminate, and punish genocides throughout the world through reporting, public awareness campaigns, and judicial or quasi-judicial follow-up. This can include trials in national justice systems, special national and international tribunals, the International Criminal Court, and truth and reconciliation commissions.

Genocide Watch was founded by Gregory Stanton. The Watch organization is the founder and chair of the International Campaign to End Genocide, initiated in The Hague in May 1999. On their webpage in 2006, Genocide Watch explains the ICEG this way:

1.5 million Armenians. 3 million Ukrainians. 6 million Jews. 250,000 Gypsies. 6 million Slavs. 25 million Russians. 25 million Chinese. 1 million Ibos. 1.5 million Bengalis. 200,000 Guatemalans. 1.7 million Cambodians. 500,000 Indonesians. 200,000 East Timorese. 250,000 Burundians. 500,000 Ugandans. 2 million Sudanese. 800,000 Rwandans. 2 million North Koreans. 10,000 Kosovars. Genocides and other mass murders killed more people in the twentieth century than all the wars combined.

“Never again” has turned into “Again and again.”[1]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Actually, I'm very impressed by the list of people and groups who DO call what is going on in Darfur "genocide".

---

The U.S., Israelis, and a few of their hangers-on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
The NDP issued a statement on Darfur today

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5167

---

Really good statement, I think - principled, balanced, consistent with everything the NDP has said about multilateralism in approaching humanitarian crises.

Diametrical opposite of the garbage spewed out by the United States and certain organizations hysterically dedicated to averting an African solution in the Sudan.

"Bush considering Darfur no-fly zone

(JTA) The United States will consider establishing a no-fly zone over Darfur if Sudan does not comply with the terms of cease-fire agreements, President Bush said in Holocaust commemoration remarks.

Bush, who toured the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Darfur exhibit Wednesday before his address, said he was giving diplomats a "short time" to persuade Sudan's government to allow in more peacekeepers and end attacks on civilians by government-allied militias.

If that does not happen, the president said, he would expand sanctions against Sudan to include 29 companies and "by blocking any of its dollar transactions within the U.S. financial system." The latter measure has severely limited economic activity in recent years for North Korea, Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

Bush said he also would push the U.N. Security Council to "prohibit Sudan's government from conducting any offensive military flights over
Darfur." U.S. and allied forces have enforced such no-fly zones in the past.

The Holocaust museum has taken the lead in activism on behalf of Darfur, where government-allied militias have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and displaced millions."

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Brendan Stone ]

“Darfur’s is a story that sounds far too similar to the experience of Armenians, of the European Jews, of many Native Americans, of the Rwandan Tutsi,” said the MPs in their press conference. “If we do not act with conviction around Darfur, then soon we will reconvene to establish another day of commemoration for the suffering of yet another innocent people.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
NDP Statement

“Darfur’s is a story that sounds far too similar to the experience of Armenians, of the European Jews, of many Native Americans, of the Rwandan Tutsi,” said the MPs in their press conference. “If we do not act with conviction around Darfur, then soon we will reconvene to establish another day of commemoration for the suffering of yet another innocent people.”

What is the NDP plan?

---

The NDP plan should be to stop, read, inform themselves, and stop talking like George W. Bush and Paul Martin on issues which they know sweet f*** all about - such as Darfur.

They should stick to getting Canada out of Afghanistan before creating more inroads for the U.S. in Africa, IMO.

The NDP is the only party in Parliament that takes some progressive stands on a number of foreign policy issues. It's too bad that it combines those good stands with horrendous ones - sometimes on the same issue (Middle East, Israel & Palestinians), depending on who is doing the talking.

This statement by Alexa McDonough was excellent. Some lobbyist must have complained that it was too "soft". So five days later, they compare Darfur to four different real genocides, just to show they're really not that far off from Bush and certain Zionist organizations.

Shame!

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

I agree about what you said reading, learning and stop talking.

However here again the NDP makes a statement that Canada should be take taking on some burden on the Durfar problem however again the leadership at the NDP does not say what role we should take on or how we should do this burden.

I find the NDP does this with many issues, they have a whole webpage to discuss and put forward their situations and thoughts to a problem however they keep the message and the solution to a few paragraphs.

So what is their plan for Durfar?

Doesn’t this party want to lead Canada? They lack leadership and the courage to lead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Are you glad that a million people died in Rwanda while people piously said that it would be wrong to interfere with a domestic Rwandan dispute?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

However here again the NDP makes a statement that Canada should be take taking on some burden on the Durfar problem however again the leadership at the NDP does not say what role we should take on or how we should do this burden.

---

I agree with you, Webgear, though in fairness, you probably want Canada to do something about Darfur and I don't (other than simply following whatever the UN decides).

The NDP has no plan. This latest statement of theirs is just "politics". One of their spin doctors decided Alexa's April 18 statement could be misinterpreted as being "soft" on Darfur, so they decided to up the stakes - "I'll see you one crime against humanity and raise you four genocides." It's just empty rhetoric (I hope).

They remind me of Buzz Hargrove on foreign policy. Once they start talking, they can't stop. You can hear any position on any issue, if you listen long enough. That's why they need to be encouraged where they take a good stand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I agree with you, Webgear, though in fairness, you probably want Canada to do something about Darfur and I don't (other than simply following whatever the UN decides).

Hint: Listen to Alexa McDonough, don't listen to Dawn Black.

---

Actually I rather not see Canada be involved in anymore military missions. I believe we should become isolationist on the world staged for a few years. Less it is UN mission we take part in has clear ROEs and mandates.

The military needs to be sorted out and given clear political direction.

We need to rebuild ourselves as a nation; we need to invest in Canada. We need to look after poor in Canada and then look after the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Actually I rather not see Canada be involved in anymore military missions. I believe we should become isolationist on the world staged for a few years. Less it is UN mission we take part in has clear ROEs and mandates.

---

quote:

---

The US has said it expects Sudan to prove its commitment to allowing a strengthened UN peacekeeping force into Darfur within a matter of weeks.

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said time was running out for Sudan to allow the international peace keeping force in. [...]

The Bush administration has agreed to give the UN Secretary General a short period of time to persuade Sudan to co-operate before pressing ahead with further sanctions.

There is no specific deadline but US officials say they will only hold off for a matter of weeks.

---

The media, of course, don't ask these U.S. officials what their business is in Sudan, in Africa, or anywhere else.

Anyone calling for intervention in Darfur should seriously consider that they are in league with the U.S. murderers - the same ones responsible for instigating the current invasion of Somalia and slaughter of civilians in Mogadishu.

It almost seems that the NDP want to take this statement a step farther and apply to that genocide to the Darfur situation.

Maybe the next press release will link the previous statements and lay the NDP’s goals or plans for Darfur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
They remind me of Buzz Hargrove on foreign policy

---

quote:

---

One of a group of veteran statesmen visiting Sudan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has accused the West of pandering to unrepresentative Darfur rebel groups.

The former UN envoy spoke as Nigeria's army chief was in Sudan to repatriate the bodies of Nigerian soldiers killed when Darfuri rebels overran their post. [...]

"There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I do not think it qualifies to be called genocide," said former US President Jimmy Carter. [...]

Mr Brahimi said peace talks planned later this month had raised a glimmer of hope.

But he said the situation for people in Darfur was dire and they too needed to be represented at the talks.

"The international community has acted rather irresponsibly on all this in the past by pampering a lot of these people around - not really wondering whether they really represented anybody and whether they were acting responsibly," said Mr Brahimi.

---

quote:

---

Some little-known facts about the Darfur situation: Both sides in the conflict are black, and both sides are Muslim. So, despite what the major news media may say, this isn't an Arab-on-black or Muslim-on-Christian nightmare. And perhaps worst of all, there isn't a good side to be on. Both have committed horrible atrocities, and both want to slaughter the other. Not to mention that entering the region militarily would only feed right into bin Laden's rhetoric ­ much like we did when we shocked and awed Baghdad. So I think it's safe to say that hatred of the U.S. would only increase among closet jihadists in the Middle East and elsewhere if we invaded Darfur. That doesn't make us, or them, any safer.

You may recall that President Clinton did his part to end the violence in the Sudan when he fired a few missiles at a pharmaceutical plant in 1998. It didn't do much good; it led to countless deaths and probably prompted al-Qaeda to attack the United States quicker. There is no reason to believe that an intervention by Bush would result in anything different. And never mind that the United States isn't all that great at "humanitarian interventions".

1992 saw the invasion of Somali, which by most accounts was an utter failure. Thousands of innocent Somalians died while others were brutally raped by UN peacekeeping forces. And for all those who claim that the late 90s Kosovo war a just conflict, don't forget that thousands of ordinary people were killed because of our intervention. Oh yeah, and NATO is still occupying the place.

There are other reasons we ought not act on all of our humanitarian impulses, however well intentioned they may seem. Unlike Darfur, we've got wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan that actually involve us. In fact, we are responsible for them. Want to help bring peace to the Middle East? Why not pressure the U.S. government to halt all funding to Israel? That'd be a heck of a start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
As an American, why don't you work at stopping the killing for which your country has been directly responsible?

By any measure, the US instigated humanitarian disaster in Iraq is far worse then what is happening in Darfur as horrible as that may be.

---

Okay. Let's rephrase the questions to make it more palatable to you: "What should the world community do about Darfur, if anything?" And, let's further stipulate that the American government should not interfere in any way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Is there a solution, Michelle? Do we just let the killing go on and hope that the people can figure out a resolution?

I don't know the answer to those questions.

---

"WE?!"

You make the answer easy.

"WE" should do absolutely nothing - zero - zilch.

Who do you think "WE" are - some superior benevolent powerful more intelligent Mostly-White beings?

"WE" should keep our murderous hands off Sudan, and concentrate "OUR" efforts on stopping our killing of Afghans. When "WE" had accomplished that, "WE" should send an email to the Sudan, cc to the UN, and inform them that we have returned to our historic role as peacekeepers and honest-brokers, inform them that we hold no brief for George W. Bush and Gordon Brown and other aggressors of their ilk - and that "WE" are available to help in any way they decide is appropriate.

I mean, why do you put out the fire in the garage when the house itself is burning?

Why is the world community so weak when it comes to Iraq? There is no willingness to call it a genocide when a full one fifth of the population is either dead or displaced yet there is a willingness to call Darfur a genocide. The world community speaks of intervention in Darfur, but no intervention in Iraq. There is talk of sanctions against the Sudan regime but no talk of sanctions against the regime in the United States.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Okay. Let's rephrase the questions to make it more palatable to you: "What should the world community do about Darfur, if anything?"

---

Much better, Sven, you're now talking like a citizen of the world instead of a Superior Being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Much better, Sven, you're now talking like a citizen of the world instead of a Superior Being.

Answer: The world community should do whatever the U.N. decides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Why the blatant double-standard? And why do you care more about the plight of Sudanese than Iraqis? It was reported today there are no 5 mullion Iraqi refugees. Why is it US concern for Iraqis can countenance killing them in massive numbers but not giving them homes in America?

---

Hmmmm...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

My guess? The U.N. will do nothing...as usual, other than, perhaps, earnestly wring it's collective hands.

---

And that's exactly what the chickenhawks want. It's in China's and Sudan's interests that there be some UN involvement and not another free lunch for the U.S. military and corporate cabal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
From the perspective of the world community, in fact to give the world community some sorely need credibility, wouldn't it make sense to first resolve the larger humanitarian crisis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

My guess? The U.N. will do nothing...as usual, other than, perhaps, earnestly wring it's collective hands.

---

The African Union is acting in this matter, and so is the U.N.

But, if they decide to do nothing, what will you do, Sven?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The "world community" has a brilliant track record of doing...nothing...when it comes to humanitarian matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The African Union is acting in this matter, and so is the U.N.

But, if they decide to do nothing, what will you do, Sven?

---

Well, according to F.M., I should do nothing (being an Amerikan, and all).

So, is "American Idol" on tonight?

[ 04 October 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

The "world community" has a brilliant track record of doing...nothing...when it comes to humanitarian matters.

---

I agree.

But that is because the "Great Powers" always have motives that run counter to doing the moral and correct thing.

Ask yourself what a more equitable and just world would look like, Sven. It would look a lot like less material comfort for you and me and less wealth for the fat cats.

Consider your economy. Consider the plastic that covers almost everything you own. The car you drive, the way you heat your home, the fertlizers and pesticides that grow your food, the thousands of miles clocked to put food on your table and fresh fruit in your grocery store shelves year round.

Consider all of the resources required from around the world to keep you and me living so, so well. Those resources have to come from somewhere Sven. And the people and governments who stand in the way of getting them must be dealt with ruthlessly. And they must understand that those resources were never intended for them or improving their lives.

They were intended for us and improving our lives.

The world community and the corporate media and the global institutions all serve to assure us that our taking their resources, through whatever means necessary, is not responsible for their plight.

Despite living in the cradle of ancient civilizations it is because they are backwards and barbarians that they live in such terrible conditions.

If only they would submit to our will and give their resources freely then they might know peace and prosperity.

Your nation, Sven, is a mafia don and my nation is a capo in the global game of Crime Family where protection is sold and rackets are prized and lies are a currency for those who never ask from whence their good fortune comes.

[ 04 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Answer: The world community should do whatever the U.N. decides.

---

[ 04 October 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Excellent idea, as usual, Unionist.

---

What's your point?

As for Afghanistan, the UN's mandate to ISAF is morally wrong. And even if it has some legal foundation, Canada should boldly tell the UN that we want nothing to do with it - give us peacekeeping assignments instead.

I said earlier in the thread that Canada should not be involved in Sudan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
At one time I thought we as a nation should take some action on Sudan however I no longer take that point of view.

posted 23 April 2007 06:19 PM

---

quote:

---

A key rebel leader in the Sudanese region of Darfur has threatened to boycott upcoming peace talks if more than two rebel groups are invited.

Khalil Ibrahim, head of the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), said only his group, a united Sudan Liberation Army and the government should participate.

The Jem would not attend if splinter groups were present as talks would be chaotic, Mr Ibrahim said.

Since last year, Darfur rebels have split into as many as 12 factions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
EriKtheHalfaRed

I said earlier in the thread that Canada should not be involved in Sudan.

I want nothing to do with Sudan.

---

No problem. I did change my point of view on this topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

I just wish the radical left would stop trying to frame everything in USA versus the world terms. I get the sense the Republicrats are content to let Africa bleed to death on its own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Not entirely, when Clinton for example refused to allow peacekeepers to step into the Rwanda massacre it was probably more a political decision based on the previous Somalia failure and Republican resistence. And a lot of the local dictators and rebels were playing their own game during the cold war leading up to it. South Africa operated with license from Western powers all over. But then the whole political makeup of modern Africa is an artificial construct reflecting little but previous colonial regimes, Sudan in particular. So in that complex dynamic the actors involved often become purely mercenary.

---