CSM column on Darfur

9 thoughts on “CSM column on Darfur”

1. Helena

2. Stay out. Stay out. Stay out.

3. Hello,
   For months I’ve been following and filing all manner of perspectives on Sudan and talking with folk who know a lot more than I do. Finally, when the world human rights folk have a window to make a difference, the only solution seems to be a military one. Since I am a pacifist yet don’t want to be sophomoric, I really was stunned to see a petition given to a thoughtful listgroup to ask Bush to send military intervention. I didn’t sleep well last night–tossing and turning–looking for other alternatives–hoping they might be found. Then I found your article and had some hope.
   I don’t know if your suggestions have a chance, Helena, but if they do–then how do we work together to see that they do? I would think if enough of us worked quickly and efficiently as well as with heart and dedication, that the world may be ready for your and/or other nonviolent solutions. I mean, hasn’t the world seen enough of military interventions going haywire? (Whether called “protective” or not…)
   There’s Amnesty International’s recent press release about the huge number of abuses in Kosovo/a right now and plenty on Bosnian intervention going awry on the internet! then not too long ago there was Somalia and what about some of the other smaller African interventions that didn’t work? Then of big concern is the leadership OAU and AU in Africa which has some quite corrupt leadership.
   So, let’s keep this dialogue going and let’s strategize. May be good to work with Human Rights leaders in the Sudan (National Coalition of Churches and Islamic leadership) and from around the continent of Africa and elswhere around the globe–church leaders, etc. who have solid reputations. Why don’t we work with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Red Cross Red Crescent International as well? The crisis deserves a huge network of folk working together!
   There may be other actions that could be included in the package that includes the unmanned monitors…such as Nonviolent Communication with leaders of all concerned parties…Marshall Rosenberg’s method is having huge impact all over the globe…perhaps there’s a way of getting certain journalists to sign on who are committed to human rights as their ONLY motive for covering this event?
   One important precaution is that we need a more wholistic plan to prevent the terrible attacks that have been occuring at the site of various UN, Red Cross I, and other humanitarian aid posts near Darfur…There also needs to be some watchful attention given to the Chinese Government’s large military presence in Sudan,their oil interests (which destroyed so many people and places in the south)and China’s ongoing alliance with Sudan Government. Yet even UN a spokeswoman representing the UN near Darfur
   spoke to the BBC a few weeks ago saying that military groups of any kind all over the world today end up killing huge numbers of civilians, raping, etc.
   This may be a big window in a truly devastating time to show the world that there are other ways besides the gun. After all, it’s “Destroy the Gun Day”…

4. “Intervention”, like “globalisation”, is just another word for imperialism. When will you ever learn? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
   The best you can do is build a peace movement in the United States, and I mean a peace movement, not an “intervention” movement of any kind. That would help.

5. Notes about SUDAN/quote from Russ Feingold: US African strategies…
   Dom, Thanks for your wise advice which I hope we will do here in the US of A. Please send more thoughts, data, corroborated examples with quotes if possible from your end to help us make progress. We have plenty of info but it so helps to have some other perspectives we might quote since so many Africans seem to be calling for our intervention!
   Here is a dialogue I’ve been having with a friend who unlike me is not a complete pacifist but who shares the humanitarian concerns and the fears of US intervention. He is also a history buff.
   Scroll down to see the beginning…
   This here is my answer to his answer…
   I’m afraid, given the state of the world, Africa, Sudan and the (especially rampant)US corruption in high places, you are right…
   Still, I think for those of us “called” into the world to be pacifists, we can do the non-military things and work with human rights proponents everywhere, anywhere we might/can/will…
   Meantime, I’m sure we agree with this statement by Russ Feingold on Capital Hill which he spoke on July 8 2004 when a panel of strategists and African scholars/experts told Congress that the US approach to Africa’s problems MUST change:
   Feingold, “(regarding)our post 9/11 engagement–subordinating basic human rights to accomodate larger strategic goals is a tactic that often comes back to haunt us.”
   So now, is the most realistic and compassionate goal for this imperfect Sudanese situation to support the UN efforts and to not do any US messing around at all? (I would think so–but how to prevent this?) What are the next best steps for cooperative effort (with the UN)?
   Connie
   My friend wrote:
   There is NO non-violent solution, the only question is how violent and to whom it is directed by who. It is a UN problem, and the UN is being constipated in this area. WE will probably unilaterally intervene because the oil is there for anyone to grab.
   Glenn
   i can’t get sudan out of my mind & wondering if pacifists will allow too many deaths or if the
   armed folk will create a mess?
   or if nonviolent solutions will even be given a chance???
   connie

6. A little more from me and my history buff friend who’s also a forensic doc & an abolitionist (re. death penalty) but not a complete pacifist…
   from Glenn:
   Intervening for the wrong reasons is not a solution, and we — that the US of A– is not
   committedto the “right” reasons. Moreover, it is a problem for the UN, acting in concert, but
   I fear Mammon has taken over the UN also.
   I am not familiar with the issues or the personalities involved in the Sudan, What follows is a generic approach to the problem. Two questions present, and I do not know the answers, although the answer to one is “Follow the money” . Or one might say “follow the oil”. A weakened Sudan is easier prey for colonization , and either the Chinese or another
   country wants to preserve their interest. What better way to do that than to incite a civil war,
   throw in a wee bit genocide, and pick up the pieces afterward?
   The genocide is a special case; it involves a biovision loosely based on social Darwinism, and
   implies a level of superiority which is really not present at all. By regarding your opponent as an

7. Does anyone here know if the International Institute for Strategic Studies made some important remarks re Sudan at the meeting on US relations with continent of Africa and aid? I.e, panel (various experts) with Congress July 8, 2004? Is this a meeting of which you are aware or involved, Helena?
   Connie

8. Huge thanks to all 3 of you for contributing such anguished, thoughtful, and thought-provoking comments…
   Dom, I tend to agree with you that the Main Task for US citizens is to build a peace movt in our own country. I’d go even further and say the Main Task for people of conscience in all (relatively) rich countries is to change the policies of our own governments to ones that actively reverse the present global inequities in power… Starting, most effectively, with trade policies that have systematically squeezed less-powerful countries for 200-plus years now.
   I can’t believe the kinds of arrogant trade policies pursued by the US and the EU, that virtually force any rulers of “south” countries that buy into the “world system”, as they are virtually all forced to do, to sign onto trade policies that continue to discriminate hugely against their products while invading their markets with US/European subsidized goods including basic food goods…
   Having said that, though, there are plenty of people inside the US–this seems to be a nationwide deformation–who want to “do something” to help, e.g., the people of Darfur… But the only model of “helping” that is actively discussed/canvased in the US media is the one called “intervention” which is a slimy shorthand these days for “military intervention”. Sometimes even called–quite wrongly!–“humanitarian intervention”.
   So for folks who feel this need, I want to argue that there are ways of “doing something” that don’t involve the military. (And indeed, doing something military will almost inevitably turn out badly… As has been mentioned re Kosovo, etc.)
   At a broader level, given the huge influence the US and EU have in world affairs, the effects of a determined turn toward development/use by these power blocs of nonviolent means of dealing with differences would have a huge effect worldwide… I kind of liked Dennis Kucinich’s idea of creating a U.S. Dept. of Peace as a counter to the existing, extremely well funded Dept of War (oops! I mean “Defense” Dept.) However, I’m a little wary. In the Carter era there was a project for a US Institute of Peace, and by the time it got funded, etc., reagan was in power and the direction of the USIP has been more or less set–far to the right of what the Carterites had intended!–ever since…
   Actually, USIP is a complex issue for me, as they have funded a bit of my research–on Israel/Syria and on my current African project. But let me just it that their general world view is far from pacifistic and often not particularly eirenic…
   I guess what we need are both broad public-ed campaigns and sharp, policy-oriented suggestions. My CSM column probably aimed toward trying to do both….

9. 1. We don’t trust Carter. In fact we fear him.
   2. Your Peace Movement cannot possibly be an organ of state power. It can only rest on a mass movement. It will be a manifestation of mass popular agency, or nothing. It’s purpose is to restrain the “special bodies of armed men”, which are the coercive hand of the state. It must be outside the state.
   3. You cannot have your peaceful intervention anywhere unless you have the political capacity to restrain the military. You do not have that now. Therefore all your interventions are simply going to amount to pathfinding for the military. Please do not do it any more.
   4. You have another article on Paul Kagame which I have not yet read. Kagame is a hero: brave, clever, decisive, and politically literate. Kagame did a job of work when there was nobody else around to do it. There are no political abstractions that can substitute for such people. There is no Holy Family, even if it includes George Monbiot, that can pronounce or withdraw a “licence” on a man like Paul Kagame.

Comments are closed.