300,000 Deaths Foretold

[gottaB]

THE EARLY PREPARATION for the genocide in Darfur, Sudan's vast western province, played out behind a veil of ignorance: Almost no foreign aid workers operated in the region, and the world failed to realize what was happening. Stage two of the genocide, the one we are now in, is more acutely shameful: A succession of reports from relief agencies, human rights groups and journalists informs us that hundreds of thousands of people are likely to perish, yet outsiders still cannot muster the will to save them. Unless that changes, we are fated to live through the genocide's third stage. There will be speeches, commissions of inquiry and sundry retrospectives, just as there were after Cambodia and Rwanda. Never again, we will be told.

It is already too late to prevent death on a scale that taxes the imagination. Sudan's murderous government and its allies in the death squads known as the Janjaweed have killed an estimated 30,000 people in Darfur since a rebellion broke out there a bit over a year ago. The crackdown has chased more than 1 million people from their homes and villages. Refugees crowd into camps that the Janjaweed encircle, as food supplies dwindle and their children die for lack of clean water and medicines. The rainy season, now beginning, will make it hard to deliver relief supplies, and starvation seems probable. On Thursday, Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, declared that in an optimistic scenario -- meaning one in which significant relief is delivered -- some 300,000 people might perish. That is the equivalent of Sept. 11, 2001, 100 times over. The worst-case scenario, according to Mr. Natsios, is a death toll that approaches 1 million.

Sudan's government is delighted with this slaughter. It perfected the art of ethnic cleansing in its long war against the country's southern rebels, and it has expertly repeated the process in Darfur. The formula is to destroy villages using a combination of informal militias and government air power, then to deny relief organizations access and let starvation do the rest. When international protests heat up toward the boiling point, some humanitarian access is granted, but it's always late and inadequate.

300,000 Deaths Foretold....

[gottaB]

1. The Wolf Letter

45 Members of Congress Call on Kofi Annan to Travel to Darfur

Some Believe Death Toll Could Reach 1 Million If Humanitarian Aid Is Prohibited

Washington, D.C. – Forty-five Members of Congress have signed a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan urging him to travel to Darfur, Sudan, to help end the genocide that is taking place in the region, according to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA).

Wolf, who already has sent two letters of his own to Annan urging him to go to Darfur, organized the joint letter.

“The world cannot just continue to stand by and watch,” Wolf said. “Genocide is taking place. The United Nations has an obligation to step in and take action. The secretary general’s presence would send a powerful message.”

Wolf was particularly distressed by reports yesterday from a U.N. meeting on Sudan in Geneva saying that the death toll in Darfur could reach 1 million if humanitarian organizations are prohibited from delivering aid.

“Time is of the essence,” Wolf said. “The killing needs to end and immediate humanitarian access must be allowed to help the displaced people get the aid they are in desperate need of.”


45 Members of Congress Call on Kofi Annan to Travel to Darfur.

[sparrowhawk]

7. There must be something that can be done--and quickly.

Didn't we learn anything from Rwanda? The genocide was over before most people were even aware of it.

[bluestateguy]

2. The neocon mantra: "Not in the American interest"

No oil. No white people.

Some of the more moderate neocons may suggest that a fact-finding, blue ribbion commission be established to "study the issue".

[Sirveri]

3. So what?

Why the hell is it in OUR governments interest to go halfway around the world to save a bunch of people who can't vote, don't pay our taxes, and aren't citizens? Quite frankly it's not, nor should it be. 1 Million people die, ok I guess that's sad, but why is that MY problem, or my governments problem? You know what, this is the same shit I say to freepers when they say we went in to Iraq to 'save the Iraqi people'. The American government is there to serve the American people. It's not there to provide handouts to half the planet.

[gottaB]

5. Why have a State Department at all?

Or foreign policy? Why is it in our national interests to endeavor to make friends among foreign peoples of the world? Why not let people remain indifferent?

[Sirveri]

6. Why is it in our interests to make freinds in Sudan?

And who's to say we can do it. We tend to have a stupid habit of fucking up whenever we send any aid to anyone. We'll go in, start out good, then do something stupid and end up with another Somalia. Clinton's a hell of a lot smarter than Bush, and even he couldn't get it right. Better to just leave it alone, save our time and money and put it the place where it belongs, at home.

[gottaB]

8. Why is it in our interests to make friends in Sudan?

A. Because a hostile, unstable Sudan has been a haven to anti-American terrorists. If we like having our embassies, ships and financial centers bombed to pieces, then I suppose we should turn a blind eye. Alternatively, we can work against the extremists. One option is to use military force. That's the most expensive and perhaps the least effective option. Another option is to make friends with people who will control the destiny of the Sudan.

B.i. Because hostilities in Sudan have spilled over into neighboring countries. When you ask, what's the cost/benefit ratio of involvement in Sudan?, you must also consider the value of peace and security in Uganda, Chad, Somalia etc.

B.ii. Because wars produce refugees, who can have a destabilizing influence on weak states. The war in Sudan has created millions of refugees. Oftentimes caring for these people and maintaining law and order become a hardship for host countries. The genocide in Darfur is no exception.

C. Sudan has just a few natural resources that the world economy needs, gum arabic (used for Cola drinks) and petroleum jump to mind. The volume of Sudan's export is not huge, but traders place a premium on disruptions in the flow of oil, so that cost ought to be quantifiable in theory. That consideration most definitely informs the Bush administration's agenda.

Cii. The economic wellbeing of Sudan's immediate neighbors.

Ciii. Is there a value to a world market system that is both relatively stable and diverse? I believe so. Whether or not you agree with making the promotion of free market capitalism a goal of foreign policy, I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge that the collapse of global markets would have deleterious consequences for the majority of Americans.

....

Look, the strongest reasons for engagement with the world are contained there in your example. Somalia. "Another Somalia." What does that mean to you? I'm guessing it means a military humiliation, or a minor fiasco of some kind. That's what it meant to Clinton when he turned his back on the genocide in Rwanda. That was a huge mistake, and if you ask him today, or ask Holbrooke or Albright, what's the proper lesson to take from Somalia, they won't say "Run! Run away!" The answer to large-scale social disorder cannot be to run away from it, because it will catch up with you. Sooner or later, you can count on it. Don't you see that Somalia has caught up with you? I do.

[gottaB]

11. Well, I was reading more from Jerry Fowler of the Holocaust Museum

and it seems to me at this time that if you aren't seeing the value of preventing genocide and being guided by conscience in our foreign policy, well, I don't know what to tell you. I can certainly imagine a world forty times more horrible than the one we live in, and significantly depleted of wonder and goodness--and I'm a person who follows the atrocities of armed conflict somewhat closely. Yes, it's conceivable to me that international affairs could be conducted in a moral vacuum, a kill and let kill world. But that's repulsive to me, because I've seen a glimpse of where that can lead. I reject it.

Fowler on Darfur:

Outlook: Sudan Genocide Fears

In Sudan, Staring Genocide in the Face

[Sirveri]

12. Really where will it lead?

My guess is that for me, it won't lead anywhere.

You know how much Rwanada affected me? I happened to hear about it on the 10 year anniversary on NPR.

Wow, some effect that had.

Chad goes under? So what. Somalia? Somalia is already a fucked up shit hole. Djibouti? Guess the Germans will have to move their destroyer. Why should American boys go out to fight a war that young Asi... I mean African boys should be fighting for themselves.

The British were the colonial managers of Sudan, let them deal with it, they're the only people with the imperialistic legacy to give repairations for. Oh it will breed terrorists? Right, I've heard freeps say the same about Iraq. This is population control, this is darwinism, this is survival of the fittest. Just because we have a big stick, doesn't mean we have to smack it down on every pissant country in the world with a problem. Especially when we've got plenty of problems at home.

[gottaB]

16. If you can't see the ramifications of the Rwandan genocide at this point

I doubt I'm going to be able to persuade you.

One point of fact, however. It seems as if you might be misinformed about the reality of Osama bin Laden's residence in the Sudan. This is a fact Bashir's government has never denied.

Here's an interview with Bashir on that topic. Make of it what you will:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/bashir.html

[ablbodyed]

14. Bill didn't get us into Somalia....

poppy the war criminal did, exactly 2 DAYS after the '92 election. Didn't dare go before then. EVERY death, EVERY ONE who died while he waited for the election is on his mean-spirited rat turd of a soul.
Then they went in with too little resources and lest if for Clinton. If you remember, pal, Bill had zero honeymoon when he took office; they were after him with everything from the start. While I don't have the date of the Somalian debacle, it was quite soon after Bill took over. Shoud he have done better? Yes, but that does not eliminate the need for the people of our planet to help those who need it. Should we have gone into Iraq? NONONONONONONONONONONONO. The reasons are bogus, the ones in Sudan are NOT.

[teryang]

4. But there is oil

This conflagration has been provoked, in part, for just that reason

[sam sarrha]

9. This is a situation of "Arab" Muslims murdering, raping, stealing land,

from "non Arab" Muslims... Is this Empire building by the Arabs..?

Is the fact that this is Muslims killing Muslims convenient for the non Muslim comunity...Maybe not, even the moderate Muslims quietly say 'nothing'.

When i was in the Peace Corps in 1973 there was an open air slave market in Dakar, Senigal... remember *'s speech about slavery there on his world wind trip.. well a couple miles from where he spoke about the end of slavery.. Arab Muslims were selling Black Muslim children literally on the street, a 6 to 10 year old child stolen from it's parents sells for about 35 to 50 dollars..Today!! because it is still open....!!

[gottaB]

10. Darfur starvation will be televised ... eventually

I guess this is in a similar vein.

Darfur starvation will be televised ... eventually

By Andrew Stroehlein
BRUSSELS – When people are starving en masse, television is there to capture their fly-covered faces as they expire. The world is appalled by the repeated images of the dying and is stirred to action: People open up their purses to charity appeals, and politicians feel strong public pressure to address the famine and its root causes at the highest level.

But mass starvation doesn't just appear out of nowhere in an instant, so where are the TV cameras just before the emaciated bodies start piling up?

Right now, they are in Iraq. Or Israel/Palestine. Or India. Or just about anywhere else in the world apart from the Darfur region of Sudan, where the next mass starvation is now imminent.

Darfur is a purely manmade disaster. Since early last year, the government of Khartoum has been supporting Arab "Janjaweed" militias in a devastating scorched-earth campaign across the region, ethnically cleansing the area (about the size of Texas) of its black African population, who it claims is supporting a rebellion there. Through their mass slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians and the burning of food supplies, the Janjaweed have uprooted about 1.5 million people from their land. Some 200,000 have crossed into Chad, but the Janjaweedhave corralled the remainder into concentration camps within Sudan. There, because of government obstacles to international relief efforts and a shortage of aid, the internally displaced are facing death by starvation and disease.

Darfur starvation will be televised ... eventually

[Led Revel]

13. interesting!

[ablbodyed]

15. Welcome to DU....

keep in touch.