Darfur Protest

[Universal_001]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18387310/

My god...they are protesting something besides a US war...only this time arguing for military intervention...strange.

[Thac0man]

Its about bloody time. This campaign has been kick started ages ago (anyone remember Danny Glover getting arrested?) but to no avail for way to long. What is equally disturbing is the total lack of comment from the Islamists or their apologists, which leads me to believe that there the colour of a Muslims skin or ethnic orgin does make a huge differance. Another black mark for political Islam.

[Universal_001]

It's not so simple however.

Countries with very well equipped and well trained armies (Europeans, Australians, Saudis, Indonesians, USA) don't wanna get involved in UN peace enforcement missions.

So we end up with badly trained and badly equipped troops from poor countries, of whom there are never enough, accomplishing nothing and getting pulled out after a few get killed.

nor should we expect the USA to do this on their own, for a start it will be seen as US imperialism and secondly the rest of us need to pull our weight and stop expecting them to police the world on one hand and whinge then they do on the other.

People don't realise how inadiquate UN peacekeeping forces are because they don't have the right backup and funding.

I hear the US left talking about peacekeeprs for Iraq with the same ease.

anyone who wants a Darfur internvention look how long the Somalia intervention lasted in the early 1990s, countires are not always willing to let their tropps die to keep psycopathic african tribesmen from hacking each other to peices.

I'd sugest anyone who wants UN intervention, anywhere read this book..

http://www.amazon.com/We-Did-Nothing-Li ... 574&sr=1-1

[Thac0man]

Domestically the thrust of that the argument is the politicisation of human rights has left Darfur in the wilderness. It is easy to critisise the lack of action on Darfur, but as you correctly point out the "imperialist" label is never far from the lips of the Wests critics and selfish African based interests. However an (estimated) 200,000 dead over 4 years is unforgivable and frankly puts the value(s) of Western human rights organisations in question given their lack or voice over this period on the Darfur issue, especially given the opportunity was there to land a solid blow on Western governments inactivity. They have no fear of political reprecussions for speaking out or campaigning on this issue. So why has it taken so long? Some Human rights organisation have made great efforts in the past, as I have said, but almost exclusively in America.

Two issues have affected the past and present situation in Darfur and sub Saharan Africa. With referance to the past; Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea have seen investment and armed support from Arab nations who tried to firm up the rule of pro-Arab goverments, usually to the detriment of fellow non-Arab Muslims - this is beyond dispute as the evidance has been seen time and again. So we are probubly seeing the re-establishment of pan-Arab nationalism using Islamic militancy as a vehicle (where previous efforts tried using a more secular approach) which is entirely in keeping with recent development given the presence of Islamic redicals from the West and Arab nations in all the stated threatres of conflict.

With referance to the present, the recent agreements to unify the rebel groups in Darfur make action more likely as stability within the pro-Darfur camp makes the situation more predictable. This in tandum with the renewed campaign makes the linkage between Western Goverment and NGOs a little suspect in my opinion (wag the dog?). Also the bolstering of Ethiopia and I suspect Chad mean that there is an answer to this proxy campiagn by Arab nations to extend their ethnic influence. So its back to the cold war for Africa. A bleak prospect but a pragmatic one if only self interest of the parties involved is taken into account.

In reality I think Western powers will be happy to see this status quo continue with those holding Arab expansionist ambitions pouring their racicals and resources into a God forsaken ************************ hole well away from the worlds media attention (and Western interests). If it does recieve more media attention, then no harm done either, it may drag the reality of inter Muslim divsions into the light of scrutiny which Muslims in the West badly need.

It is this current Darfur human rights campaign which may be aimed at denying the ongoing situation being maintained for Western poltical purposes, in which case kudos to the NGOs but pity it took this evolving reality to ingnite the campaign because it sullies their agenda; though maybe not the result.

[Simon.D]

Look up Darfur on Google earth, tis quite disturbing.. Google have used their satelite to take lots of high definition images of the the area, so you can zoom in & easily make out the charred remains of countless villages..

Disturbing stuff, but gives you a good appreciation for the scale of the disaster..

[dsmythy]

Irish indymedia is very quiet on this. A few news pieces but little comment. They are usually the first and loudest to complain about such events. I find it strange that that online community itself is turning a blind eye.

[Thac0man]

Irish indymedia is very quiet on this. A few news pieces but little comment. They are usually the first and loudest to complain about such events. I find it strange that that online community itself is turning a blind eye.

There has developed a disturbing Herd mentality over the past few years. Online media outlets and campaigns are usually well organised and as you say "loud", but who ultimitly initiates their campaigns? Taking the web at face value as the gauge of public sentiment is incresingly less reliable. The ever popular media obsessed New Labour sounded a warning about that a few months ago and got laughed at (?).

[Universal_001]

Indy media may be quet now, but the second anyone tries to stop the carnage they'll be out in their thousands crying "western imperialism"

[paypal]

There's a rebellion and civil war in a part of Sudan.

It's a far-off country of which I know little.

Why should I take sides? Just because a few pop stars tell me I should?

Am I supposed to believe them when they say the rebels are good and the govt is bad? Why should I?

[Universal_001]

One of the many problems with the idea of Humanitarian Intervention.

I supported the Kosovo one...but it wasn't exactly black and white.

1. The KLA were no angels, many of their attacks were designed to provoke Serb overreaction in the hopes of triggering and intervention.

2. They bombed the Chinese Embassy claiming the map was old...are the CIA really that stupid?

3. They threatened ground troops (while never intending to use them as they didn't want to risk their lives for the Albanians)