Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Darfur_Protest.html

[On the other hand]

Here's something I can't figure out...

[bucheon bum]

any suggestions on what us peons can do about darfur and similar situations? Besides writing letters to politicians/gov't leaders and donating money to groups like MSF. Oh, and of course protests such as the one above.

I'm not being a cynic, honestly asking.

[On the other hand]

[Gopher]

Several rather outspoken critics of U.S. interventionism, indeed the world community at large, have thus far failed to take any action whatsoever on the problem, let alone propose decisive action.

Interesting situation. Looks a lot to me like Somalia all over again, just new and improved.

As far as what we in the U.S. can "do" about it, I don't think we have much leverage in the Sudan, and am I not convinced that the Sudanese govt is in control of events either as much as the place is simply unraveling.

Resolutions in the U.S. Senate or U.S. protest rallies strike me as a particularly ineffective method of influencing events on the ground in Darfur. And, ultimately, I do not see compelling U.S. interests in that part of the world and, frankly, we already have more than enough prefabricated tar-babies on our hands.

The world is very much a crude and chaotic, harsh, and unforgiving place. The U.S. is simply not positioned to do much about this. We must choose our battles, then, based on national interests. And if I were advising policymakers on this one, I would advise that this is not our problem and, as I said, even if it were, there is little we can do about it unless we were prepared to accept a whole bunch of "black hawk down"-style incidents and pay the political price of so many more U.S.-critics who will undoubtedly paint us as responsible for all that occurred there before, during, and after any such intervention...so, as the Chileans say, no vale la pena.

By the way, I rely on Human Rights Watch's summary, which looks about a year old. Has there been some dramatic revelation since?

[bucheon bum]

[Bulsajo]

Yes, in terms of its severity, according to reports.
Or Yugoslavia.

This is ethnic cleansing promoted by the central government of a territory that is distinct enough to be its own nation.
The Sudanese conflict between the Muslim/Arab north and animist/Black south has been going on since the 80s and has risen and fallen in severity based on a number of factors, not the least of which has been the nature of the regime in Khartoum at any given time.

Somalia was famine, breakdown of central govt, and Warlords fighting civil wars.

[Gopher]

[Bulsajo]

[Bulsajo]

Five uncomfortable truths about Darfur

By EMILY WAX
The Washington Post
April 25. 2006 8:00AM

Heard all you need to know about Darfur? Think again. Three years after a government-backed militia began fighting rebels and residents in western Sudan, much of the conventional wisdom surrounding the conflict -including the religious, ethnic and economic factors that drive it -fails to match the realities on the ground. Tens of thousands have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced, with no end to the conflict in sight. Here are five truths to challenge the most common misconceptions about Darfur:

Nearly everyone is Muslim

Early in the conflict, I was traveling through the desert expanses of rebel-held Darfur when, amid decapitated huts and dead livestock, our SUV roared up to an abandoned green and white mosque, riddled with bullets, its windows shattered.

In my travels, I've seen destroyed mosques all over Darfur. The few men left in the villages shared the same story: As government Antonov jets dropped bombs, Janjaweed militia members rode in on horseback and attacked the town's mosque - usually the largest structure in town. The strange thing, they said, was that the attackers were Muslim, too. Darfur is home to some of Sudan's most devout Muslims, in a country where 65 percent of the population practices Islam, the official state religion.

Everyone is black
---ADVERTISEMENT---

Although the conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, everyone in Darfur appears dark-skinned, at least by the usual American standards. The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers. Each tribe gives itself the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselves Arab.

Sudan melds African and Arab identities. As Arabs began to dominate the government in the past century and gave jobs to members of Arab tribes, being Arab became a political advantage; some tribes adopted that label regardless of their ethnic affiliation. More recently, rebels have described themselves as Africans fighting an Arab government. Ethnic slurs used by both sides in recent atrocities have riven communities that once lived together and intermarried.

About politics, not religion

Although analysts have emphasized the religious aspects of the conflict in Darfur, a long-running political battle between Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and radical Islamic cleric Hassan al-Turabi may be more relevant.

A charismatic college professor and former speaker of parliament, Turabi has long been one of Bashir's main political rivals and an influential figure in Sudan. He has been fingered as an extremist; before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Turabi often referred to Osama bin Laden as a hero. More recently, the United Nations and human rights experts have accused Turabi of backing one of Darfur's key rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement, in which some of his top former students are leaders.

Because of his clashes with Bashir, Turabi is usually under house arrest and holds forth in his spacious Khartoum villa for small crowds of followers and journalists. But diplomats say he still mentors rebels seeking to overthrow the government.

Conflict is international

China and Chad have played key roles in the Darfur conflict.

In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby came to power by launching a military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrowing President Hissan Habre. Deby hails from the elite Zaghawa tribe, which makes up one of the Darfur rebel groups trying to topple the government. So when the conflict broke out, Deby had to decide whether to support Sudan or his tribe. He chose his tribe.

Now the Sudanese rebels have bases in Chad; I interviewed them in towns full of Darfurians who tried to escape the fighting. Meanwhile, Khartoum is accused of supporting Chad's anti-Deby rebels, who have a military camp in West Darfur. (Sudan's government denies the allegations.) Last week, bands of Chadian rebels nearly took over the capital, N'Djamena. When captured, some of the rebels were carrying Sudanese identification.

Meanwhile, Sudan is China's fourth-biggest supplier of imported oil, and that relationship carries benefits. China, which holds veto power in the U.N. Security Council, has said it will stand by Sudan against U.S. efforts to slap sanctions on the country and in the battle to force Sudan to replace the African Union peacekeepers with a larger U.N. presence. China has built highways and factories in Khartoum, even erecting the Friendship Conference Hall, the city's largest public meeting place.

'Genocide' label hurt

In September 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the conflict as a "genocide."Rather than spurring greater international action, that label only seems to have strengthened Sudan's rebels; they believe they don't need to negotiate with the government and think they will have U.S. support when they commit attacks.

Peace talks have broken down seven times, partly because the rebel groups have walked out of negotiations. And Sudan's government has used the genocide label to market itself in the Middle East as another victim of America's anti-Arab and anti-Islamic policies.

Perhaps most counterproductive, the United States has failed to follow up with meaningful action. "The word 'genocide' was not an action word; it was a responsibility word," Charles Snyder, the State Department's senior representative on Sudan, told me in late 2004. "There was an ethical and moral obligation, and saying it underscored how seriously we took this."

The Bush administration's recent idea of sending several hundred NATO advisers to support African Union peacekeepers falls short of what many advocates had hoped for.

------ End of article

[Gopher]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Since the US is guilty of interventionism in Somalia and guilty of noninterventionism in Rwanda, I think Darfur is a situation where individuals have to make a determination of what they want their government to do. Then pressure the government to act in accordance with that decision.

I agree there isn't much we can do without massive military intervention, which we are not capable of doing right now. But it looks like the US could bring more diplomatic pressure on other countries who have more direct interests and influence in Sudan.

[Gopher]

[Hollywoodaction]