Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Salon Interview: US should be embarrassed - Darfur Genocide, 5/17/05

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:03 PM
Original message
Salon Interview: US should be embarrassed - Darfur Genocide, 5/17/05
INTERVIEW-US should be embarrassed about declaring genocide and doing so little


By Julia Scott, The Salon.com

May 17, 2005 | As southern Sudan enjoys the first fruits of peace from the comprehensive treaty it signed with the Khartoum government on Jan. 9, ending a 21-year civil war, hundreds of civilians continue to die violently on a daily basis in Sudan's western region of Darfur. The situation in Darfur exploded in February 2003 after the Islamic regime disarmed insurgent African groups and left weapons in the hands of Arab militias, which it then hired to control the insurgency. The Arab militias began slaughtering and raping Darfuri civilians and razing their villages, displacing 2 million people and creating an untold humanitarian crisis.


Eric Reeves
In July 2004, Congress led the world in unanimously declaring the violence in Darfur a genocide, as the Bush administration also subsequently did. And Congress is considering the Darfur Accountability Act, which would take strong steps against the Khartoum regime and provide support for the meager African Union monitoring force that is now in Darfur.

But recent media reports suggest the Bush administration may be backing off its earlier genocide determination, and even trying to neuter the Darfur Accountability Act.

While the world was wringing its hands over Darfur, Smith College English professor and Sudan expert Eric Reeves was taking action on the tragedy. Since becoming involved with Sudan in 1999, Reeves has taken off six semesters to focus on raising awareness about the genocide. His writing has appeared in over 150 publications; State Department officials read his reports, and journalists quote his mortality assessments. Reeves also led the divestment campaign that eventually forced Talisman Energy, a Canadian oil and gas company that was operating in Sudan, to exit the country.

Asked what the world can do now about what he says is "arguably the most destructive civil conflict since World War II," Reeves told Salon, in a phone interview from his home in Northampton, Mass., "We can pass all the U.N. resolutions we want, but if we don't see to it that Khartoum is forced to adhere, none of these will make any difference ... If we wait for meaningful action from the U.N., we will be waiting forever." What's needed to stop the genocide, Reeves said, is immediate humanitarian intervention and military support to protect civilians and aid operations.

...entire Salon interview at Sudan Tribune


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you very much...
yes, it is a shame.

But as stated before, Bush likes things just the way they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't know why Bush doesn't empty European troops and just
pile them all up in the Sudan.

Would be a win for him. Our blackhawks could take on their blackhawks (not -it would be a few billion in missiles and the genocide would end).

I suspect it is because when they say complicated... they mean that the Sudan has oil, but only under those poor people in Darfur. Not so much in the North. So - the Muslims in the north would fight to the death to not be separated from those provinces.

It is why Nigeria stays together. The Oil is in the South there. So the non-muslim in the south have to put up with kinds a sharia law here and there.. so that they can give some oil money to the Muslims in the North.

May the person who invents the best alternative to oil - get the Nobel Peace Prize on the double!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Amen to that Nobel Peace Prize!
The people who are dying now in Darfur are Muslims; they're just black African Muslims. So, I guess it's cool.

And, you know, Bush needs those 70,000 troops from Germany in Texas for his palace guard.

:crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No - I don't know how many of the people dying are Muslims. I think
the people in Darfur are Christian or animist. That is the problem. They sit on all the oil. And the Muslims need them gone so they can have that oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No, that's southern Sudan

Darfur, which is roughly the size of Texas, was an autonomous sultanate until 1916, when it was conquered by Britain and incorporated into Sudan. The area is topographically diverse—high desert in the north flows into lush grasslands in the south—and ethnically kaleidoscopic. It is populated by some ninety tribes and countless sub-clans. Virtually all of Darfur’s six million residents are Muslim, and, because of decades of intermarriage, almost everyone has dark skin and African features. To a visitor, Darfurians appear indistinguishable.

Despite the tradition of ethnic mixing, the population has recently begun subdividing between “Arabs” and “Africans,” who are known, derogatorily, as zurga, or “blacks.” People of Arab descent tend to be nomadic, herding camels in North Darfur and cattle in the south. The three largest African tribes are the Fur—Darfur means “land of the Fur”—the Zaghawa, and the Masaaleit. The Africans generally farm, though certain groups, like the Zaghawa, sometimes maintain farms while also sweeping south with their herds during the harvest season. Competition among the tribes—for economic, not ethnic, reasons—has always been fierce, but tribal leaders customarily resolved these disputes, and their decisions were respected by the authorities in Khartoum.

In the nineteen-eighties, however, competition for land intensified. There was a regional drought, and the expanding Sahara began transforming arable soil into desert. The introduction of tractors and other mechanized farming equipment fed the ambition of some African farmers. Arab herders in North Darfur began to resent the seasonal forays of Zaghawa herdsmen into Arab-occupied grazing areas. African farmers grew hostile to the camel-riding Arab nomads from the north who increasingly trampled their farmland as they roamed in search of pasture. Arabs from countries to the west—Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and Chad—also began flooding the region, exacerbating the feuds. Farmers who had once celebrated the annual return of Arab nomads, whose animals had fertilized their farmland and helped carry their harvests to market, began to impede their migrations.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040830fa_fact1



The article is by Samantha Power and well worth reading the whole thing. The government in Khartoum is Arab muslim. The militias the goverment sent out to kill the Darfurians are also Arab muslim. So there's really a lot going on here. The systematic program of rape of the black females of Dafur, for example, is for the purpose of "lightening" the population, since a child born of an Arab father and an African mother is at birth an Arab, and any land the child would eventually own or inherit would become Arab land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thank you for correcting me. The article I read didn't focus so much
Edited on Wed May-18-05 04:18 PM by applegrove
on Darfur - as it was written in the 1990s.

I saw Samantha Power talking about Darfur (not in detail) a few weeks ago on T.V. PBS had just shown 'Sometimes in April' (which I was afraid to watch). And then they had a panel to discuss genocide. I have been meaning to read up on her stuff. Wolfowitz was also on the same panel, and despite his brilliance, she was by far and above the authority on the panel. Wolfowitz point was that the Rawandan genocide was a very simple one..that the others have been more complicated.

The article I read was my Judith Miller. She was doing the history of various countries in the Middle East. Judith talked more about the spread of Islam in the leadership of Sudan in the 1990s, more so than any region.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Right
That's when the Christians were getting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Read Power's book for sure
A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide


Wolfowitz has a point, actually. Sudan is far more complicated, which is why I guess the UN called it "crimes against humanity" instead of genocide. If they called it genocide, they'd have to do something about it, for one thing. But anytime there is civil war stuff like this has a lot of cover, but sooner or later, unfortunately in this case later, it will be recognized as another genocide the world did nothing to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I agree. And people will say "why didn't you bomb the rail lines?"
And the answer would be that it was complicated.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could harness all the people who actually liked fighting in war the world over and send them to 'hot spots'. They would be at war all the time. Then peacekeepers would show up later. Then it would not be such a big deal. They would want to go.

But no.. Neocons don't want a force like that. They want to have all the power to say "stop that" so they can direct it at anyone who goes against a the model of Liberal Democracy that they like. For sure it is based in vulnerability to not being self sufficient in oil. But wouldn't it be nice if we had a gang of rabid generals who were told to bully the genocidals..rather than some pathetic place like Cuba or some place 'trying' to do right by its people like Venezuela.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Yes yes
Humanitarian intervention is what I want our military doing as much as possible. That famous line by Madeleine Albright when the Pentagon didn't want to go into Bosnia, something like: What good is having this fabulous military when we never want to use it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Oh - I don't think I could read a whole book on it.
I like consumption of my genocide's short and clean and academic rather than detailed. At least I can admit that. I can only take so much in that department. Thirteen pages from her sounds absolutely enough by me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. Here are a couple of links to add. I am putting together a page of info
to post later. It's not complete by any means...but it's a copy and paste of the actual page instead of all the links I'm culling through.

Darfur: When Humanity Forgets


( waiting for links )

And then they starve to death:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3922461.stm

US Calls it Genocide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4227835.stm

US Backs Off from Calling it Genocide

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/sudn-m03.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC