quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush imposed sanctions Tuesday against Sudan in reaction to the "genocide" in Darfur, and has ordered actions against 31 companies and three people -- preventing them from doing business in or with U.S. companies.

The three Sudanese people affected include two high-ranking government officials and a rebel leader, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. They were targeted for their roles in fomenting violence and human rights abuses in Darfur, the agency said.

"For too long the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder and rape of innocent civilians.

"My administration has called these actions by their rightful name, genocide. The world has a responsibility to help put an end to it," Bush said.

---

Right on Bro! 'Bout time!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Gee Wade do you ever read anything except right wing media like the Nazi Post and CNN.

US sanctions over the decades have usually done far more harm than good expecially to the people the most in need.

---

"Right on Bro! 'Bout time!"

I don't have alot of time for anyone who would refer to a war criminal as Bro. Bush is as nasty and has committed crimes against humanity that have affected far more people in many places on this planet.

Edited to add: This post has nothing to do with Sven although that semed to me to be obvious

[ 29 May 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Your post says

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

What do you think would be the best approach to the problems in Sudan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I don't have any silver bullet but the US is the last country that I want to see involved because to them it is all about the oil so ergo they will not help the common people in the long run and if their past record is any indication of future events then the regular folks are going to suffer under an American backed despot instead of some other despot.

---

I tend to agree that sanctions often harm the average person, not the leaders (e.g., Iraq and food for oil). But, the U.N. seems like it is completely incapable of doing anything because it tries to find consensus and appease the lowest common denominator. The result is: Nothing gets done (ala Rwanda).

quote:

---

So, what are the alternative solutions that are being discussed?

---

quote:

---

The only possible solution lies in going back to the drawing board and seeking a political settlement that involves all those who are a party to the conflict - inside and outside Sudan. There are no shortcuts, and it may well be that there will be no solution for a very long time: All the key elements are moving in the wrong direction today. The international players made mistakes...

---

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: muggles ]

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: muggles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by muggles:
Of course, it goes without saying that Wade's outburst which opened this thread is a terribly racist and ignorant tirade. The Janjawid have non-Arab allies and are hardly prejudicial in choosing victims: Arab civilians and Arab rebel groups have been killed by that bunch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by muggles:
Their verdict: Not genocide.

---

Human beings, I believe, should have a little more sense of dignity, self-direction, and faculty of critical thinking than that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wade Tompkins:
Maybe now we'll see some real progress against the Janjaweed barbarians in Sudan who rape and enslave the Blacks.

---

The BBC recently ran a series of reports on the situation in Darfur. Their take is that it is the first war caused by global warming.

Essentially the largely Arab pastoralists grazed their herds of camels (horses?/cattle?) on the agricultural lands of the largely Christian or animist farmers. Win win; free poop for the farm land, browsing foods for the animals.

With the advent of drought, the relationship broke down and of course, all are suffering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I tend to agree that sanctions often harm the average person, not the leaders (e.g., Iraq and food for oil). But, the U.N. seems like it is completely incapable of doing anything because it tries to find consensus and appease the lowest common denominator. The result is: Nothing gets done (ala Rwanda).

So, what are the alternative solutions that are being discussed?

---

So, what's "the solution"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
The first step is getting over the notion that YOU - living a thousand miles away and knowing only what a handful of corporate media sources are letting you know - have any right to dictate an outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by laine lowe:
Very disingenuous Sven to make that the alternative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, what is the alternative, laine lowe?

---

You guys need electoral reform or a revolution do-over to get rid of the plutocrats, one or the other. And then yez can close-down the almost 800 military bases around the world and dismantle the U.S. nukes on foreign soil. That would be a start. Because if nuclear disarmament doesn't happen, at some point every country in the world is going to want nukes to avoid the invisible fist of capitalism that paid visits to Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and god knows who else in future.

New Cold War over Africa's Oil Riches

Africa: US Arms Sales Increase 2006

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
You tell us what should happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Likewise

---

Well, earlier I asked:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So, what are the alternative solutions that are being discussed?

---

And that was met with this (lovely) response:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I think the first thing we have to do is get over the racist assumption that the role of white people is to swoop in and solve the world's problems.

[snip]

So, what's "the solution"?

The first step is getting over the notion that YOU - living a thousand miles away and knowing only what a handful of corporate media sources are letting you know - have any right to dictate an outcome.

---

No one on babble has expressed any interest in doing anything about mass murder in other countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Get the hell out of Africa and stop propping up murderous sonsobitches for the sake of political expediency. That's the solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

In other words, ignore the problem. Great "solution".

---

It's not anyone's problem in the U.S. or Canada or Belgium or even the U.K, Sven. It never was, and, that's the problem. We've just identified the golden and opportunity for U.S. foreign policy in Africa: stay the hell out of Africa and concentrate on fixing third world conditions that still exist at home in America.

No more ugly American abroad, Sven. And Canada has its hands full trying to steer this ship without a proper rudder in Ottawa. We've all got problems, and Africa doesn't need advice or military intervention from dysfunctional democracies like our's.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's not anyone's problem in the U.S. or Canada or Belgium or even the U.K, Sven. It never was, and, that's the problem. We've just identified the golden and opportunity for U.S. foreign policy in Africa: stay the hell out of Africa and concentrate on fixing third world conditions that still exist at home in America.

---

That's just a high falutin way of saying: Let them eat cake and let the mass murders continue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

That's just a high falutin way of saying: Let them eat cake and let the mass murders continue.

As Borat would say, "Veeeeery niiiiiiiice."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Fidel, I get it!! You don't want anything done about mass murder in Sudan. Why can't you just say that?

---

Do have a clue as how many millions of people your governments have murdered around the world in the last century and this one, or how many brutal right-wing dictatorships they've propped up in repressing millions?. Someone should write a book entitled, U.S. imperialism for dummies, and with big font print for easy reading.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Do have a clue as how many millions of people your governments have murdered around the world in the last century and this one, or how many brutal right-wing dictatorships they've propped up in repressing millions?. Someone should write a book entitled, U.S. imperialism for dummies, and with big font print for easy reading.

---

Let's stipulate this: The USA should do nothing about Sudan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Let's stipulate this: The USA should do nothing about Sudan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
the crux of what fidel is saying rests on different assumptions from your premise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
The US should get out of Sudan. But, do you think that would end the mass murdering?

---

The U.S. should get out of Iraq. But, do you think that would solve Iraq's problems?

NATO should get out of Afghanistan. But, do you think the Taliban would then give up the ghost?

Canada should combat climate change. But, do you think this will save the world?

The Allies should defend Poland against Nazi Germany. But, do you think Poland would then become truly independent?

Sven, the crux of what Fidel is saying rests on different assumptions from your premise.

And, for those who say that discussing possible solutions is akin to viewing Sudan as "the white man's burden", it strikes me that they are electing to simply throw their hands up and be satisfied to watch mass murder continue...without lifting a finger.

Lovely.

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
The UN has been reporting about this issue for years.

The information has always been there, just people have not looked for it or cared.

---

quote:

---

Sven: This is no international will to do anything substantive about places like Sudan, Rwanda, etc.

---

Not quite. For example, the genocide in Rwanda was preceded by an economic genocide that prepared the ground. Profit-taking still goes on, the unequal relationship between rich countries and poor countries continues and worsens ... these things continue. Canadian companies like Talisman even benefitted from the human slave trade in East Africa until it became public and they were disgraced.

It is, perhaps, useful to start to use the expression of "the fourth world" to describe countries and regions of the planet that have NO HOPE of development thanks to the imperialist world order, "globalization" and the Bretton Woods institutions that enforce them. Famine creation, enforced underdevelopment, go on apace.

Here's a stat: despite the shocking and worsening poverty, conflict over land exaserbated by climate change, etc., we have:

quote:

---

As reported in the New York Times (March 25, 2007), “According to the United Nations, in 2006 the net transfer of capital from poorer countries to rich ones was $784 billion, up from $229 billion in 2002....Even the poorest countries, like those in sub-Saharan Africa, are now money exporters” to the rich countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Essentially the largely Arab pastoralists grazed their herds of camels (horses?/cattle?) on the agricultural lands of the largely Christian or animist farmers. Win win; free poop for the farm land, browsing foods for the animals.

. . .

Mr. Bush is responding to his right wing christian base who insist on seeing this complex horror as a simple "Islamofascists oppressing good christian folk" dynamic. Watch the Miracle Channel, 700 Club, etc. for the simplistic perspective.

---

If those comparisons are being made by anyone, it's likely because they are still thinking of the Second Sudanese Civil War (and perhaps you are too) between the north and south, which was largely Christian. The U.S. was also involved in taking up the cause of the south and by the late 1990's accepting refugees, partly because of that religious dimension.

The absolute least that could be done right now is a no-fly zone. It's a big country, yes, but one of the keys to putting pressure on Khartoum is to ground or eliminate the Russian helicopters they're using to support the Janjaweed.

EDIT: China has supplied aircraft too:

Amnesty International - arms continuing to fuel serious human rights violations in Darfur

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

This is no international will to do anything substantive about places like Sudan, Rwanda, etc. The UN simply wrings its hands...but little else.

---

What did the U.S. do to prevent the Rwanda massacre, Sven ?. The CIA knew about the threat of violence and even warned Washington about an impending massacre. Washington's goal was to discredit the French government, which had supported Habyarimana, and install the U.S and Brit-friendly Kagame. Washington deliberately did nothing to prevent the ethnic massacres. And now Kugame stands accused of "war" crimes.

Destabilizing Sudan: US Weapons for SPLA Freedom Fighters 2004

quote:

---

They stoke the fires of death and destruction, often when the enemy is no more than a puppet, in order to bring about a climate for political change, which they then fashion by their own hands under the guise of 'humanitarian intervention' for there own financial gain. This all brings us to the current reality in Darfur which has been in the making for some time. In November 2002 America instituted The Pan-Sahel Initiative which involves military training in Chad (shares a long border with Sudan), Niger, Mali and Mauritania.

The Sudan Rebel uprising in Darfur began in June, 2003, six months after the Pan-Sahel Initiative was initiated. Apparently, the Darfur rebels are still receiving U.S. arms.

Destabilise the country, cry rape and genocide, then invade militarily under the guise of 'humanitarian intervention'. American imperialism at its best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
What did the U.S. do to prevent the Rwanda massacre, Sven?

---

What did Canada do?

What did Europe do?

What did Russia and China do?

What did the U.N. do?

Sudan has U.S. supplied weapons and CIA-trained mercenaries for hire, just like Afghanistan, Iraq and several more examples.

The only thing standing in the president's way is the ugly fact of genocide and the ability of the American people to make it politically unacceptable for our president to avert his eyes from what is happening in Darfur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
You see?. The chickenhawks don't give a shit about human rights. Isn't that right, Sven. Warmongering hawks have blood on their greasy, grimy, grubby little hands.

Sudan has U.S. supplied weapons and CIA-trained mercenaries for hire, just like Afghanistan, Iraq and several more examples.

I'm beginning to believe you don't give a shit about human rights in other countries either, Sven. Because if you did, you wouldn't be apologizing for the shadow government and blood-soaked oil hounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by non sequitur:

Yes, okay already - the US has been, and continues to be responsible for heinous acts across the world. The question is, what is to be done about the genocide?

---

I think it's clear that wherever there is oil, drugs or weapons to be dealt and profited from, there are gross human rights violations and corruption happening. And the CIA and western corporations are typically in the thick of it.

As for the NDP's call for putting peacekeepers in Darfur, I don't understand what that has to do with removing our troops from the aggressive U.S.-inspired combat mission in Afghanistan. Canada's military has world renowned repuatation for peacekeeping not working toward propping up U.S. imperialism on the other side of the world. There is a difference, and the NDP understands that if we are going to deploy military, it should be for saving lives not taking them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I think it's clear that wherever there is oil, drugs or weapons to be dealt and profited from, there are gross human rights violations and corruption happening. And the CIA and western corporations are typically in the thick of it.

As for the NDP's call for putting peacekeepers in Darfur, I don't understand what that has to do with removing our troops from the aggressive U.S.-inspired combat mission in Afghanistan. Canada's military has world renowned repuatation for peacekeeping not working toward propping up U.S. imperialism on the other side of the world. There is a difference, and the NDP understands that if we are going to deploy military, it should be for saving lives not taking them.

Right now there are Canadian soldiers coming home in plastic bags from Afghanistan, and that's not because they are there and separating two warring factions - Canadian soldiers are one of warring factions in Afghanistan. It's easy when we realize that there was a significant change in Canadian military role abroad during the Paul Martin government and continuing with Steve Harper's crew elected last year with less than 24 percent of the eligible vote.

---

As repulsive as Khartoum's support for the Janjaweed is, it's just too simplistic to slap on our rather shopworn western good/bad template to this one.

Consider: we've made an unspeakable cock-up of Iraq and Afghanistan with our 'let's go in like John Wayne' approach - why, WHY would it suddenly work in Sudan? A vast arid wilderness about which we know SFA, much like Afghanistan. With glorious dignified ancient cultures that have been sorting it out among themselves for thousands of years before North America was white.

So: halt the flow of arms into the region. Set up peace talks, as painstaking and laborous and snail's pace as that is; support the African Union force that's already on the ground so they can do a proper job of peacekeeping; no-fly zone sounds good; and find a peaceful solution. Though as a poster noted earlier, global warming is implicated in this conflict and for that, the industrial nations have much to answer for. Maybe, then, if we want to help Sudan, we can stop fucking with the global climate; something useful we can do without Haliburton's help.

Sudan's territorial borders, like so many 'third world' nations are a legacy of colonialism and that explains some part of the current strife.

The Booshbag and his henchmen talk a pretty fair game, citing that China and Russia have had direct arms sales in the past, but quite a lot of Sudanese weaponry, especially small arms, are US made and supplied.

FAS.ORG reports that there have been no arms sales to Sudan from 1992-2006, yet Sudan mysteriously is on the hook for some $1.2B in military aid from the US. If no arms had been sold, why the loans?

"The Defense Department writes off another $1 billion each year for bad or forgiven weapons-purchase loans to foreign countries. Thirty-four countries, including Zaire, Turkey, Liberia and Sudan, owe the United States $14 billion in military loans, according to a 1996 Pentagon report; most of these loans will likely be written off."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/Guns_R_Us.html

Also, USA supplies EXTENSIVE (more like exhaustive) amounts of military aid to Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia...(and this is not counting Libya)

Is the USA naive enough to belive that none of these "bastions of democracy" would broker a third party deal just to collect the middleman's commission, or do they JUST NOT CARE?

Here are just a few startling, yet not surprising statistics:

"Since 1985, participants in 45 ongoing conflicts received over $42 billion worth of U.S. weapons, according to a 1995 World Policy Institute report. Among the major conflicts in 1993 and 1994 90 percent involved one or more parties that had received U.S. weapons or military technology prior to the out break of fighting."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/North_Africa/USArmsSales_HornAfrica.html

It's been illegal for US citizens to do business with Sudan since 1997, but this has not stopped many - there are always means to get around such restrictions through foreign subsidiaries, intermediary countries and dual citizenship.

And our stoogeocrats in Ottawa, what about them making a Canadian-made decision on pulling out of Afghanistan and sending a real peace-keeping force into Darfur ?. Or would Steve Harper need to make a phone call to Washington before that was possible ?.

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What's wrong with the question "what is to be done about the genocide in darfur?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
That's right, if George Bush says so, it must be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
But what are the U.S. military-industrial complex, the cosmetic government and CIA to do about the genocidal situation they're largely responsible for in Sudan?

---

Instead, the local villagers should also be properly armed, organized and defended while trying to restrict flow of armaments to the Sudanese (good luck) and put sanctions against any oil companies working with the Sudanese government, enlarge the African peace keeping forces but keep all Western forces out, then when the tide starts turning against the primary aggressors (Sudan and its proxies) they might start negotiating honorably, meaning those who have been dispossesed should be allowed immediate return to their lands to rebuild, with a reasonable minimum of proof for prior rights. A no fly zone might be acceptable under UN command.

Some sort of agreements will have to be made over landuse between leaders of both farming and herding communities again; complicated but may still be possible with adequate independent oversight and modicum of foresight.

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

An excerpt from an article about Bush's newest attack on Khartoum over Darfur. Just because GW Bush calls it genocide doesn't make it so. "Genocide" is the prefered catch-phrase to gain public support just like "weapons of mass destruction" was bandied about to gain support for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

quote:

---

In his speech Tuesday, Bush justified the new set of sanctions by accusing Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of blocking the deployment of a United Nations peace-keeping force.

The Sudanese government has resisted the deployment of UN troops, fearing it could turn the country into a de facto Western protectorate. Instead, it has called for an expanded African Union force, with UN backing.

Once again, Bush labeled the humanitarian crisis in Darfur “genocide.” This assessment that has been rejected by both the United Nations and a number of aid organizations active in the region, which acknowledge that Darfur constitutes one of the world’s greatest humanitarian disasters, but dispute the inference that violent repression carried out by the government in Khartoum constitutes an attempt to exterminate an entire people.

The use of this term has an unmistakable purpose. Under the UN charter, the determination of genocide in a given country requires armed intervention. Washington’s accusations of genocide have gone hand-in-hand with an attempt to portray the conflict as a racial struggle pitting “Arabs” against “black African” tribes, a gross simplification and distortion of the conflict aimed at inflaming public sentiments.

The “genocide” label is also utilized for domestic political purposes. Floated first by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in the run-up to the 2004 election, the accusation was popular both with the Christian right and Zionist organizations, which have adopted the cause of Darfur for their own reasons.

The Bush administration had until recently dropped the use of the word genocide, but has resurrected it in the last several months.

“For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder, and rape of innocent civilians,” Bush declared in his White House speech Tuesday. “My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide. The world has a responsibility to help put an end to it.”

If one were to remove the word “Darfur” and substitute “Iraq,” the entire passage would stand as a fitting indictment of the Bush administration itself. The number of Iraqis who have lost their lives as a result of four years of US war and occupation is at least three times as great as number who have died in Darfur, and a far greater percentage of these deaths is directly attributable to military action. Twice as many Iraqis have been driven from their homes, either internally displaced or forced into exile, and every essential social institution and aspect of basic infrastructure has been decimated.

Washington is not pursuing a policy of genocide in Iraq; its aim is not to wipe out the Iraqi people or exterminate its Sunni population. Rather, it is to suppress all opposition to its semi-colonial control of the country and its strategic oil wealth, a goal that has unleashed violence and death on a near genocidal scale.

Nor is the government of al-Bashir out to exterminate the non-Arab people of Darfur, but rather has sought to suppress a challenge to its centralized control, an aim that has also entailed widespread death and suffering.

---

As Keith Harmon Snow has pointed out, the U.S. is already at war with Sudan, and much of the peace movement doesn't know it. The U.S. wants regime change, and the violence continues because they haven't reached this objective.

We make a big deal about China, and even Canadian oil companies. But it's not China's responsibility what goes on in Sudan, compared to the U.S. which has been funneling in weapons and money to combatants in Sudan's civil wars and border wars for the past 20 years.

There's a million dead from the latest U.S. 'humanitarian intervention' in Iraq, so pardon me if I don't jump on the bandwagon for "no-fly zones" in Sudan, a country which itself is already a victim from U.S. intervention.

Learn more here:
http://www.hamiltoncoalitiontostopthewar.com/Articles/Sudan&Rwanda.htm

Why should any Sudanese trust Uncle Sam? Why should we?

USA bombs a Sudanese medical plant and refuses to pay reparations.

[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

But lots of people condemn what has gone on their, including Noam Chomsky:

quote:

---

in the case of Darfur, the crimes happened to be carried out by an official enemy, Arabs. There's nothing easier than condemning the crimes of an official enemy. On the other hand, looking at your own crimes, that takes moral integrity. And that's difficult. You don't get praised and lauded: You get denounced and vilified. It's not just true of the United States. If you were in the old Soviet Union, it would've been very easy to protest American crimes, with great drama and breast-beating, but how about Soviet crimes? That would've been different.

That's not saying there shouldn't be protests about Darfur -- there should be. And there should be constructive proposals about it. But if you want to explain the difference, it's elementary, and it runs right through history.

---

That logic runs BOTH ways. In other words, people who support Milosevic have to be able to criticize Milosevic, and not just go into denial about "their side."

Same with Rwanda, which you mention as if there were some doubt about it, apart from the Stalin Gang Position. If you like Stalin and Milosevic and Rwanda, then THEY are your side, and you have to be willing to criticize THEM, not just your enemy, the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Isn't Sudan the country that had its one and only medical drug-producing facility bombed to smithereens by the Clinton administration in 1998 under spurious justifications?

---

Yes, it's an unwritten goal of international terrorism/predatory capitalism to bomb schools, hospitals, water works, power plants and basic infrastructure in general. This is typically a prelude to neo-Liberal capitalism. Next come the economic hitmen and IMF emergency loans tied to privatization/briberization of the common good. The problem in Sudan is they need to pay the protection money on time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
usury + mafia = free market economy

---

quote:

---

afrol News / IRIN, 22 March - Thousands of people fleeing conflict in Chad have sought refuge in Sudan's western region of Darfur despite the continuing warfare and humanitarian crisis there, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said on Thursday.

An estimated 20,000 Chadians have sought refuge in West Darfur since 2005, while 16,000 had opted to remain close to the border to access their land. "These people are fleeing the conflict in their country to camps in West Darfur where there is food and security," said Annette Rehrl, UNHCR spokeswoman in Sudan...(con't)

---

http://www.afrol.com/articles/24809
Thousands of Chad refugees flee - to Darfur

I have to admit that I haven't finished hearing this speech in its entirity but I think it's worth checking out:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

That logic runs BOTH ways. In other words, people who support Milosevic have to be able to criticize Milosevic, and not just go into denial about "their side."

---

So what leads you to believe Milosevic was on the left, Jeff ?. He was just another neo-Liberal sellout. And he died while in custody of the west. And there were Croatian atrocities overlooked by the west for the sake of political expediency. There were some real blood-thirsty bastards who never received so much as a stern word from western politicos.

Jeff, why do you think General Pinochet and School of the Americas terrorists in Latin America were never arraigned and prosecuted on charges of crimes against humanity ?. Do you think there is a double standard carry over from the cold war ?.

[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

But lots of people condemn what has gone on their, including Noam Chomsky:"

"MAHMOOD MAMDANI: I think the larger question is the names -- genocide, in particular -- come into being against a background of the twentieth century and mass slaughter of the twentieth century, and particularly the Holocaust. And against that background, Lemkin convinced the international community, and particularly states in the international community, have an obligation to intervene when there is genocide. He’s successful in getting the international community to adopt a resolution on this.

"Then follows the politics around genocide. And the politics around genocide is, when is the slaughter of civilians a genocide or not? Which particular slaughter is going to be named genocide, and which one is not going to be named genocide? So if you look at the last ten years and take some examples of mass slaughter -- for example, the mass slaughter in Iraq, which is -- in terms of numbers, at least -- no less than what is going on in Sudan; or the mass slaughter in Congo, which, in terms of numbers, is probably ten times what happened, what has been happening in Darfur. But none of these have been named as genocide. Only the slaughter in Darfur has been named as genocide. So there is obviously a politics around this naming, and that’s the politics that I was interested in.

"AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think this politics is?

"MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, I think that what’s happening is that genocide is being instrumentalized by the biggest power on the earth today, which is the United States. It is being instrumentalized in a way that mass slaughters which implicate its adversaries are being named as genocide and those which implicate its friends or its proxies are not being named as genocide. And that is not what Lemkin had in mind."

quote:

---

All the French aid organizations ­ MsF, Action contre la Faim, Solidarités and even Médecins du Monde (MdM) -- agree that the only possible way to end the civil war between the Sudanese army, Janajaweed militia and various rebel groups must be a political settlement, not military intervention. MdM president Pierre Micheletti points out that the population is scattered "like leopard spots" across a region the size of France, in enclaves controlled by one side or another, with no front lines.

---