 |
| |
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
I've never been very comfortable with Bush's freedom rhetoric, but I wish that he'd be at least uniform in its application. Tell me, where is the freedom in the Sudan? How can we attack Iraq because he was brutally oppressing some in his country, and yet ignore Sudan where genocide is ongoing? After Rwanda, the international reaction was, "never again." Well, it is happening again, and Congress has recognized it. And yet Bush has backtracked. It is no longer a genocide. Only 60K people have died there...
If Bush wants to be a moral president, he must act in Darfur.
quote:
Day 113 of the President's Silence
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur.
Is the muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress from taking action.
Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing villages.
The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete provisions about Darfur from the legislation.
Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there are other signs that the administration is trying to backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of African Union troops needed there.
Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a day.
This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a cease-fire there.
Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide, and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that there are three reasons.
First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and ended up with a mess.
Second, Mr. Bush is very proud - justly - that he helped secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).
Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for consultations about the war on terror, and the White House doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.
All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed, raped or mutilated in Darfur - and if the situation worsens, the final toll could reach a million dead.
This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately, public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to Darfur, but it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was outspoken and active this spring in another complex case, that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself as much to try to save the lives of the two million people driven from their homes in Darfur.
So I'm going to start tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
The troops are kinda busy.
"First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and ended up with a mess."
Reasonable...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
|
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
While I agree the US should be doing more, what is the rest of the world doing? |
This:
quote:
The African Union has agreed to more than double the size of its peacekeeping force in Sudan's western Darfur region, a spokesman for the group said.
The AU's Peace and Security Council on Thursday approved boosting the force from 2,200 to more than 7,700, including nearly 5,500 troops, 1,600 civilian police and some 700 military observers, said African Union spokesman Assane Ba.
AU Peace and Security Commissioner Said Djinnit told journalists after the meeting that the enhanced force would be in place by the end of September. Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda have pledged to contribute troops, he said.
The Darfur conflict broke out in February 2003 after rebels took up arms, complaining of discrimination by Sudan's Arab-dominated government. The government is accused of responding by backing a scorched-earth counterinsurgency by Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed.
War-induced hunger and disease has killed more than 180,000 people, according to U.N. estimates.
"We are concerned over the continuing crisis in Darfur and condemn the continued attacks against defenseless civilians," Djinnit said. "These extra troops will further promote a more secure environment and help build confidence as well as protecting civilians."
The council did not discuss newly announced talks with NATO on possible logistical support, he said.
Djinnit also said the council did not discuss changing the force's mandate to make it more robust, something the AU spokesman had earlier said was on the agenda.
The force currently has orders to monitor a shaky cease-fire signed just more than a year ago, with only limited powers to protect civilians being attacked. But an AU report had recommended that its troops should be allowed to intervene to protect civilians from violence that already has killed tens of thousands of people in the region.
Even as the AU was preparing to send in a larger force, the U.N.'s special envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, said a 12,000-strong peacekeeping force was needed in Darfur by early next year. He said that getting such a force in place depended on the Sudanese government and rebels signing a peace deal.
African leaders have said they would also need more logistical support from rich countries to deploy a force of that size.
Sudan's ambassador to the AU, Abuzeid Alhassein, said on the sidelines of the meeting that the group risks being seen by the Sudanese as an occupying force if broadens the mandate of its force to allow the AU peacekeepers to step in and forcibly protect civilians.
"The protection of the civilians in Darfur should be left to the Sudanese civilian police," Alhassein said.
An internal assessment of the AU mission said it needs 5,887, troops on the ground in addition to 1,560 civilian police by August. It added that it may need to quadruple the force to 12,300 to restore order in Darfur, as Pronk suggested Thursday.
"We need to get around 12,000 troops in by early next year as soon as we have a peace agreement. We need a comprehensive peace agreement between the government and the rebels by early next year," Pronk said. However, he was not commenting on the African Union's assessment report. "I don't think people will return before there is a peace agreement."
He expects the 12,000 troops to remain in Darfur for around four years.
Pronk said the situation in Darfur had improved since last year, but said 500 people were still dying every month.
He also said that serious violations of a cease-fire - most of them committed by insurgents - were continuing. "The AU presence has resulted in more stability where they are, but they have to be able to back their mediation with force," said Pronk.
Darfur peace talks, which broke down at the beginning of the year, are expected to resume in May. At least 2 million have been made homeless by the conflict. No firm estimates of the number killed in fighting exists. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Sudan becomes US ally in 'war on terror'
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday April 30, 2005
Guardian
Sudan's Islamist regime, once shunned by Washington for providing a haven for Osama bin Laden as well as for human rights abuses during decades of civil war, has become an ally in the Bush administration's "war on terror".
Only months after the US accused Khartoum of carrying out genocide in Darfur, Sudan has become a crucial intelligence asset to the CIA.
In the Middle East and Africa, Sudan's agents have penetrated networks that would not normally be accessible to America, one former US intelligence official told the Guardian. Some of that cooperation has spilled over into the war in Iraq: Sudan is credited with detaining foreign militants on their way to join anti-American fighters there.
Sudanese agents have also helped the CIA to monitor Islamist organisations in Somalia.
"The intelligence relationship is the strongest thread between Washington and Khartoum," the official said. "Khartoum is probably the only government in the Arab League that has contributed in a major way to the protection of US forces and citizens in Iraq."
News of the growing cooperation was first reported in yes terday's Los Angeles Times. The paper traced the thaw in relations since 2001 to a milestone last week: the visit to Washington by Sudan's intelligence chief, Salah Abdallah Gosh. It reported that Sudan's secret police had begun to crack down on suspected Islamists, had shared evidence with the FBI and allowed US personnel to interrogate al-Qaida suspects.
In May 2003, Sudanese security forces raided a suspected terrorist training camp and deported more than a dozen, mainly Saudi, militants to Arab states which work closely with US intelligence services, the newspaper said.
Yet a decade ago Sudan was a haven to Bin Laden and other international outlaws, such as Carlos the Jackal. In 1993, it was placed on the US state department's list of terrorist regimes. Approaches from Khartoum were rebuffed - even as it offered its services against an emerging al-Qaida in the 1990s.
"Sudan tried to hand over two guys implicated in the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in east Africa, and the response was to send cruise missiles to hit the aspirin factory in Khartoum," the official said. "They offered up Bin Laden in 1995, and we said we don't even have an indictment on him."
Officially, Washington's position towards Sudan remains unchanged. "Sudan is still considered a state sponsor of terror," a state department spokesman said yesterday.
News of General Gosh's visit to Washington caused consternation in human rights circles. The general is among 51 Sudanese officials implicated in human rights abuses by the international criminal court.
"I quite understand that the war on terrorism means dealing with bad actors, but to fly in one of Sudan's chief committers of what Washington has formally described as genocide is deeply disturbing," said an independent Sudan analyst, Eric Reeves. He noted there had been signs of a slight thaw towards Khartoum for some time - despite the state department's official stance. |
Moo.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2005 23:04
|