I agree that the one of the big barriers in helping African nations has been having to choose between either overtly corrupt dictators in power or rebel factions with dubious loyalties and agendas. It makes the situation much more difficult.

As to whether the US should intervene, I'd say we have a moral responsibility to at least try and help. Unfortunately, my (albeit limited) understanding is that our current military deployment has us overextended as it is, with Afghanistan and Iraq. So I think a US sponsored UN resolution condemning the actions in Darfur, as well as providing monetary support and equipment for a multilateral force to intervene would be entirely appropriate, as well as demonstrating that the US is in favor of an intervention, but can't logistically manage one right now.

MagicFlute

Compton, CA

December 2003

JUL 26, 2004 03:14 PM

lowenb said:

MagicFlute said:

WaTed said:

bean said:
Bullshit.

Outside aid groups have been making progress in Africa for years. UN security forces have had limited successes there (limited only by their home nations' lack of interest or fear of commitment). The Rwandan massacre wasn't an inevitable clusterfuck, it was an example of gross negligence on the part of the international community, and that means the citizens and media of UN countries. I've heard people who were in positions of responsibility in our government and some in Europe say "we knew what was going on, we knew that there were UN troops there who needed assistance and who could have prevented it. We were getting dire daily reports from peacekeeper commanders there, but our hands were tied by public and partisan opposition, and we would have been crucified at home had we acted."

African leaders have been telling the G8 leaders exactly what they need for several years now, and their pleas have been falling on deaf ears. At this year's summit, Bush was too busy trying to convince France to help out with the Iraq aftermath to talk about Africa.

It's an overwhelming problem if you try to solve all of Africa's problems at once with a limited scope of solutions (like troops alone), but taken individually, Africa's problems are easily manageable. Some renewable food aid, money to fight AIDS (promote education of safe sex, dispelling widely-believed myths about sex, distributing condoms, etc), reduction in demand for diamonds, and fair prices on coffee would, all by themselves, go a long way toward reducing the grip local warlords have over their regions, regional fighting along borders, and the desperation that turns envy, hunger, mistrust, and miscommunication into brutal wars. If you add US-backed UN peacekeepers to the mix, success in fighting many of Africa's problems is attainable.

Of course, there's no way "US-backed UN peacekeepers" could even exist under Bush's foreign policy, and he has refused to promote any sort of safe sex other than abstinence, which is even more ludicrous in Africa than it is elsewhere.

[Edited on Jul 23, 2004 by bean]

*humps bean's leg*

anyone have any links to chomsky on the subject???

I don't know why you would want a chomsky quote, but to further conversation here you are. Granted the majority of Chomsky's writing on the Sudan was after Clinton bombed the pharmaceutical plant and again for his book '9/11' in which he damns America and makes comparisons of the terrorists bombing to the pharmaceutical bombing. I was unable to locate a more recent reference to the current situation. Chomsky does mention the civil war and waring factions but only to say Clinton's bombing ruined possible compromises to end the fighting.

Leo casey--

..blame the US attack on this factory for every conceivable problem [and some inconceivable ones as well] in the Sudan and its surrounding region. Using a quote full of the most remarkable euphemisms, Chomsky informs us that the bombing of the factory brought to a halt "compromises" that might have ended the decades old "civil war" between Sudan's "warring sides." How the destruction of a single factory could have produced such remarkable results is never made clear in the particular passage Chomsky provides, but a fuller account is provided in the complete article from which it is excerpted. The full account, however, would strip the veneer right off the euphemisms, so Chomsky limits himself to the short selection. What the selection calls a "civil war" between "warring sides" has been a genocidal campaign conducted by the northern Arabic government, run by the extreme

Chomsky's reply to Casey

Chomsky's reply to Hitchens

Criticism of Chomsky I include the last link, because it was horrificly long and the information of relevance is in the last couple of paragraphs. THe article does question Chomsky's support of some of the most brutal regimes and their murderous ways.

I really was asking for chomsky's analysis on the current situation in
sudan,not links to right wing bullshit about how incredibly unamerican
chomsky is for cediting the left when protesters tried to form a human
chain around the pentagon durring the vietnam crisis, even macnamara
said nam was a mistake,I really dont think trying to convince me
chomsky is a vampire from outerspace is relevant.....

lowenb

Princeton, WV

June 2004

JUL 26, 2004 03:34 PM

what the hell, i gave you two from chomsky and 2 critics. shit... and hes not from outerspace...from neptune.

Phoebus

Italy

OLD SKOOL

JUL 26, 2004 09:25 PM

legionnaire said:

Phoebus said:
Really smart stufff...

In my almost eight years in the military, I've had the opportunity to visit some very exotic and beautiful places, and I've also seen first hand the horrible effects of poverty, war, strife, hate, intolerance, etc. I can only speak for myself, but... having been fired upon by hostile individuals on various occasions for one reason or another, I would (given the choice) rather deal with this sort of thing while helping out the hungry and disadvantaged than for most any other cause. Similarly, I have no problem with the US sending money, aid, and food to African nations in need, provided we also send a guarantee that said aid is not abused.

But yeah, you're right. Right about now, the idea of us setting up a force in Darfur is screwed in more ways than one. Unfortunately, a multilateral UN force is more often than not five flavors of fucked up. A hallwark problem of this organization, after all, has been the utterly unreliable peaceekeping forces it fields when the troops come from non-European (Aussies and Kiwies being notable exceptions) nations. Even if we sent tons of aid, unless the UK made good on its theoretical plan to deploy a full Brigade of troops there, who would keep the peace? And how would they make sure the food got to those needed?

Certainly not the mockery of a 300-person force proposed by Sudan's neighbors (who also elected them to the Human Rights Commission... ). And certainly not by adhering to some farce of a set of rules of engagement that prevented a "peacekeeper" from engaging someone careful enough to just shoot people without blue helmets.

Eh, I'll quit while I'm still ahead. The whole Darfur thing pisses me off enough as it is.

I'm glad some people on this site are thinking about all this shit/talking about it, though.

[Edited on Jul 26, 2004 by Phoebus]

rottenart

Norman, OK

February 2004

JUL 26, 2004 09:43 PM

i think the key is just to handle it in the correct way. sending in a grossly outnumbered force for fear of retaliation from the public over military casualties is not going to cut it. but, like someone said earlier, since we're waaaay over-extended with the iraq debacle right now, i don't think it's plausible at the moment. this would be a good time for the UN to show that it's not the ineffectual dinosaur it's venomous critics say it is and put together a real multilateral solution. if we don't need them to go into a country, why should they need us?

edited because multilateral is quite different than unilateral

fuck, i can't type at all!

[Edited on Jul 26, 2004 by rottenart]

[Edited on Jul 26, 2004 by rottenart]