Friday, September 29, 2006

New York: As U.S. pressure on Sudan grows top UN officials stab Darfur in the back

In an amazing turn of events two top UN officials recently have expressed reservations about sending in UN peacekeepers to Darfur effectively retreating on the demands put forth in the UN Security Council Resolution 1706 and backstabbing global efforts to get security forces into the Sudan in order to protect millions of displaced refugees. According to a news article at BBC News online Jan Pronk, UN Special Envoy to Sudan has stated that the UN should abandon efforts to send in a UN peacekeeping force and instead increase funding to the African Union mission. In a statement to the Associated Press Professor Johannes Pieter Pronk said,

"The international community should instead push for the African Union's mission to be prolonged and reinforced," Mr Pronk is quoted as saying. He said the AU force's mandate should be extended indefinitely to ensure relief continued to reach Darfur's refugees. Mr Pronk is quoted as saying he was certain Khartoum would allow the AU force to stay on in Darfur. World leaders, he said, must guarantee more funds for the AU so it can carry out necessary peacekeeping work. "Otherwise, we're shooting ourselves in the foot each time," he said. "Our first priority must be to help the people of Darfur."

In a further shocking development, outgoing
UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown (chief of staff for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annanas) has lashed out at the U.S. and U.K. governments in an attempt to lay blame for the UN’s failures in Darfur at the feet of President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair. During an exclusive interview with the U.K. newspaper The Independent Mark Malloch Brown claims,

Nowhere are the new limitations of US power today more exposed than over Darfur, where Washington has used the word "genocide" to condemn the scorched earth policies of the Sudanese government against the people of Darfur and the rebel groups who hide among them. But, says Malloch Brown, in their outrage the US and the UK are, "out there alone and it's counter-productive almost".


"Sudan doesn't see a united international community. It doesn't see its oil customers [China and Russia] or its neighbours in that front row. And that allows it to characterise themselves as the victims of the next crusade after Iraq and Afghanistan. So Tony Blair and George Bush need to get beyond this posturing and grandstanding. The megaphone diplomacy coming out of Washington and London: 'you damn well are going to let the UN deploy and if you don't beware the consequences' isn't plausible. The Sudanese know we don't have troops to go in against a hostile Khartoum government; if Sudan opposes us there's no peace to keep anyway; you're in there to fight a war. It's just not a credible threat."

What is needed instead is two things: "a carefully-modulated set of incentives and sanctions which Sudan needs to understand" and a diplomatic coalition to back them.

Khartoum wants four things: "the normalisation of their relations with the US, UK and others; an opportunity to deploy their new oil wealth and exercise global diplomatic and economic influence; a UN deployment that will increase their authority as the national government of Sudan and not undermine it; and a way of handling the International Criminal Court indictments laid against members of the Khartoum government which they all feel very threatened by. Those are the kind of issues which the Sudanese need to hear a positive message on.

"But in the other pocket there need to be the sanctions. And those pluses and minuses need to be echoed not just by a group of Western leaders but by a much broader cross-section of countries that Sudan respects and trusts. That's what we're now trying to orchestrate. We've been working very hard on getting China to be part of the next set of diplomatic demarches to put pressure on the Sudanese. We're working on how can we bring the major states within the Arab League and the African Union more into frontline diplomacy."

Meantime, he says, the West could do with matching its moral indignation with cash. The food aid pipeline to three million hungry people in Darfur is still $300m short of what is needed. And the African Union peacekeeping forces in the region - inadequate but the only game in town - isn't properly financed till the end of the year. Western governments, he says, "have really taken their eye off the ball on this".

There you have it from the U.K.’s very own
Mouth of the South, Mark Malloch Brown, a rat leaving a sinking ship if ever there was one. Brown is obviously more interested in saving his tarnished legacy at the United Nations than saving lives in Darfur, a mission where he and his UN colleagues have failed miserably. Did I mention that Mark Malloch Brown is a son of Africa, born 1953 in the British Colony of Southern Rhodesia?

Meanwhile, back in the United States of America and from various corners around the globe pressure on the Government of Sudan and its cadre of international backers (
the Arab League, China, Russia, etc.) has been steadily building. From the pages of the New York Times (a SaveDarfur.org full page ad) to the halls of the U.S. Congress, from the Canadian capital of Ottawa to the Norwegian capital Oslo, politicians and civic leaders and ordinary world citizens are demanding action on the crisis in Darfur with or without the permission of the Khartoum regime. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of Sudan President Omar al-Bashir (aka Omar the Butcher) according to a September 27th Voice of America news report:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday Sudanese authorities will be held responsible and "bear the consequences" if they continue undermining efforts to reinforce peacekeeping operations in Darfur. In a Washington speech, she said the Khartoum government is at a crossroads in its future relations with the United States and the rest of the international community.


State Department officials billed the speech to the
Africa Society as a major address on Sudan. And the message to the policy group included some of the strongest language to date about implications for the Khartoum government if it continues to reject the upgrade of the African Union observer mission in Darfur into a full-fledged U.N. peacekeeping operation.

The U.S. State Department VOA news article goes on to say:

She called on the Khartoum government to "immediately and unconditionally" accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur, as called for in a Security Council resolution at the end of August.
Rice said the Khartoum government, which has refused the U.N. force as a violation of its sovereignty, faces what she termed a "clear and consequential decision" and a choice between cooperation and confrontation.

She said it if chooses cooperation and welcomes the U.N. force into Darfur it will find a "dedicated partner" in the Bush administration. But she said if remains defiant on the peacekeeping issue, it will be headed for international isolation.

"If the Sudanese government chooses confrontation, if it continues waging war against its own citizens, challenging the African Union, undermining the peacekeeping force, and threatening the international community, then the regime in Khartoum will be held responsible, and it alone will bear the consequences of its action," she said. "The international community must make clear to the leaders of Sudan that this is the choice they face."

Two days after Secretary Rice’s speech before the Africa Society U.S. lawmakers from the
Congressional Black Caucus held discussions over Darfur with diplomats and ambassadors from 11 Arab and Muslim African countries and with the People’s Republic of China ambassador to the United States Zhou Wenzhong. VOA News reported on the meeting between U.S. African-American lawmakers and the Arab League’s diplomatic corps in Washington D.C. and I quote:

In what some described as tough discussions, members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent more than an hour behind closed doors with ambassadors and diplomats from Arab countries.
Attending, according to congressional aides, were Egypt's ambassador to the United States,
Nabil Fahmy, and the Arab League ambassador to the U.S., Hussein Hassouna. Also, diplomats from 10 other countries, including Jordan, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Mauritania, Morocco, Djibouti, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia [were in attendance at the meeting].

Donald Payne, a New Jersey Democrat told VOA the lawmakers had, in his words, "drawn our line in the sand" regarding the need for urgent Arab government pressure on the Khartoum government to allow a 20,000-strong U.N. force into Darfur: "We reiterated our feeling that the Arab League has the power, and the authority, and the relationship with the government of Sudan to move [Sudan president] Bashir. If anyone can do it, they can and we asked them to go back to their capitals, (send) a message to their capitals, send a message to Bashir that he has to change his ways," he said.

Payne said he and others were "not diplomatic" in delivering a message that Khartoum's objections to a U.N. force may ultimately not prevent a U.N. force from deploying to Darfur. He adds there was a clear difference of opinion on the issue of Sudanese sovereignty, cited by Khartoum and the Arab League as a barrier to a U.N. force. "The support the Arab League gives to Sudan reflects I think as much in its policies for good as it may be for inaction, and what we are saying in this meeting, very affirmatively and very strongly, [is] we want an active Arab League, actively and aggressively approaching the Khartoum government that they have to change because people are dying," said
Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat – Texas), who was among lawmakers participating in the meeting.

Note: links to external online resources in articles above have been added by author

Hmmmm. I like Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice’s approach better than Pronk & Brown’s backsliding tactics for conflict resolution. How about you, my readers? Should the UN make another worthless deal with Omar al-Bashir on Darfur, or should the U.S. & Co. offer him a deal he can’t refuse?

ADDITIONAL ONLINE RESOURCES

UN News
UN Security Council Resolution 1706 (full text and press release)
Security Council hears proposal to revive 'nearly dead' Darfur peace plan (SC/8833)

VOA News – 09/27-29/06 - text, audio and video
Rice Warns Sudan of ‘Consequences’ for Refusing Darfur Force
U.S. Lawmakers Press Arab Governments, China on Darfur

BBC News online
UN must drop Darfur peace effort – 09/29/06

The Independent online (U.K.)
Exclusive interview: In defence of the United Nations – 09/29/06

U.K. Guardian newspaper online – 01/12/05
Meet Kofi Annan’s right-hand man (profile of Mark Malloch Brown)

Congressional Black Caucus of the 109th U.S. Congress
Congressional Black Caucus – Wikipedia

CBS 60 Minutes – Yahoo! News Online Special – 09/24/06
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 60 Minutes
Video segments, exclusive interviews, and viewer comments

PBS Frontline
Interview with Egypt ambassador to the U.S. Nabil Fahmy – Sep 2001

Diplomatic Traffic
Profile on Arab League Ambassador to the U.S. Dr. Hussein Hassouna
Arab League: We are trying to restore trust with the United States


Technorati Tags:


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think your interpretation of Jan Pronk's and Mark Malloch Brown's comments is mistaken. Pronk was just saying that we need to be prepared for the reality that the UN force isn't going to happen, at least anytime soon, and therefore we'd better keep supporting the AU. And Mark Malloch Brown wasn't bashing the US and UK at all - he's saying that other countries need to step up and speak out about Darfur as well, because if it's just the US and UK, then Sudan can get away with calling it imperialism, and just keep doing what it wants. We need Russia, China, and African and Arab countries to start pressuring Sudan as well.

Black River Eagle said...

First of all, thank you for your visit and leaving a comment Becca. I believe that Jan Pronk and other top officials at the UN are backtracking on UNSC Resolution 1706 and crumbling under the threats and belligerence of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. Period. It won't be the first time that UN officials and member states do not have the will to enforce UNSC resolutions and leave desperate people in the lurch. You need some examples?

Let us review an excerpt from testimony that Mr. Pronk gave before the UN Security Council on September 18th in New York (Ref. UNSC document SC 8833):

TITLE: Council Members Stress Government’s Responsibility to Protect, Urge Expanded United Nations Presence in Darfur to Avoid ‘Slide from Crisis to Catastrophe’

While only four months old, the Darfur Peace Agreement was “nearly dead”, the senior United Nations envoy to the Sudan told the Security Council today, as he briefed it on the latest developments in that country and presented his proposal for reviving the plan, which could have a serious impact on the implementation of the peace agreements throughout the country.

The Darfur Peace Agreement “ought to be under intensive care, but it isn’t,” the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the Sudan, Jan Pronk, said. It was a balanced text -- somewhere in the middle of the extreme positions taken by the Government and the rebel movements -- yet, it did not have the support of several of those groups, which had taken a political decision to stand aside. Bringing them on board was the first condition to bring the Darfur Peace Agreement “out of the coma”. Other conditions for reviving the accord included establishing a truce; reforming the Ceasefire Commission; resuming talks to improve the Agreement; and getting off the “collision course”, both within Sudan and internationally.

Also needed was the implementation of the Council’s resolution 1706 (2006) adopted on 31 August, he said. That text made it crystal clear that the international community wanted a transition from the present African Union peacekeeping force to a United Nations force. The Council had also invited the Government’s consent for the deployment. From its side, the Government had also been crystal clear that it was against the transition. However, the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) had proven to be a fair and effective peacekeeper in southern Sudan. “We can and will do the same in Darfur,” Mr. Pronk pledged.

He added that the United Nations did not deserve insinuations from Sudanese political leadership in power. The withdrawal of UNMIS troops from eastern Sudan upon completion of their mandate had sent a strong signal to the people of the country that the United Nations had come to eastern Sudan upon invitation of the Government, accomplished its task and left. There was no hidden agenda to occupy or “recolonize” the country. The Organization’s only aim was to protect the people, while respecting the sovereignty of the Sudanese nation.

The UNSC press release goes on to say (the U.K. government position):

Citing the “responsibility to protect”, the representative of the United Kingdom stressed the Government’s obligation to protect its own citizens. It was clear that the Sudanese Government was not protecting its own citizens in Darfur, to say the least. In such cases, the responsibility to protect meant that the international community had a right to get involved, primarily in efforts to help the State concern carry out its responsibilities. That was what the United Nations had done in southern Sudan, and it was what everybody wanted to see happen in Darfur. If offers of help were turned away, the international community could not allow the situation to “slide from crisis to catastrophe, because of the ill-founded fears of the Government of Khartoum”. If the Government of the Sudan cared about its citizens, it must consent to a United Nations force.

So I ask you, which position do you support? Jan Pronk & Mark Malloch Brown's or the U.S. and U.K. government's demand that the Resolution 1706 is implemented in its entireity ASAP? Are you willing to risk a few hundred thousand more lives until the UN gets Russia, China, and the Arab League on board? I and millions of other people are not willing to wait "on the other guys" any longer. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

I think it is interesting how differently you and I interpret the same information. Perhaps I am naive.

I would love, LOVE, for a UN force to go into Darfur whether the Sudanese government consents or not. But who is going to lead it? The US and UK governments may be emphasizing that the international community has the right and obligation to intervene whether Khartoum likes it or not, but are we going to back up those words with boots on the ground? It's not going to happen, not while we're bogged down in Iraq.

Our governments may talk the talk, but what they're actually doing is everything they can to pressure the Sudanese government to consent to the UN force. They're not going in without it, and nobody else is either.

You're right that there is backtracking on the UNSC resolution; just as there has been backtracking on the resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon. But I don't think you can blame the UN officials for it; it is the member states who must enforce the resolutions.

So perhaps we must agree to disagree. I do wonder - is your perspective a common European one? What is the grassroots feeling over there? Are people paying attention to Darfur?

Thanks for the blog. I do enjoy it.

Black River Eagle said...

Becca (Rebecca?),

We cannot always cover for UN officials i.e. Jan Pronk or Mark Malloch Brown or Kofi Annan by saying it is the responsibility of the member states to do something. It is equally important that the UN keep member states informed about a crisis like Darfur, work together with the relevant parties and stakeholders in reaching solutions to conflicts and crisis, AND persuade member countries to live up to their obligations and promises. If the UN deputies and secretary generals and so forth have lost their ability to P-E-R-S-U-A-D-E, then they have also lost their ability to successfully negotiate. In the corporate world or in politics, they would be out the door and quickly replaced with someone who could get the job done.

As far as my point-of-view on Darfur I would like to think that it is mine alone independent of my nationality. But to be honest the fact that I am 100%+ American through-and-through probably does have some effect on my view of the world, attitudes and behavior. On top of that I am an African-American (black) so you can just imagine how upset I am about the atrocities and butchery against innocent, helpless civilians that have taken place in the Sudan over the past 25 years.

A good place to start in reviewing what the Europeans think about the crisis in Darfur is over at my friend Jörg Wolf's blog The Atlantic Review. Jörg has posted on the subject several times with the most recent post dated Sep 26th "NATO Response Force to Darfur?". There is a quite a lively dialogue taking place in the comments section of that post and there are links to other related posts on Darfur also. Here is the URL to the Atlantic Review or see my blogroll links:
http://atlanticreview.org/

P.S. I am happy that you enjoy my writing here and thank you for the compliment. Bet you 5:1 that the U.S.A. is going in with combat forces in order to enforce that resolution and make way for UN peacekeepers to follow. If we do, Washington has got my backing all the way.

Anonymous said...

I'll take that bet. But really hope that you win.

I meet with officials from State Dept. and USAID pretty regularly through my job, to discuss Sudan, among other things. An invasion of Darfur doesn't seem to be in their plans, but I couldn't say at all what the military is thinking.

Black River Eagle said...

Breaking News!!!

According to an October 2nd Reuters news report, Deputy UN Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown has backtracked again. Here is the latest from Reuters:

Critical U.N. aid now lauds U.S., U.K. on Darfur

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - A United Nations official who infuriated Washington by accusing the United States and Britain of "megaphone diplomacy" over Sudan changed tack on Monday, praising both countries for keeping the issue alive.

Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said on a visit to Brussels he was convinced President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were "on the right side" in seeking to end what he called an outrage in Darfur.

"On Darfur, the two leaders, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are moral stalwarts on what needs to be done," he said.

But he said it was clear that Sudan did not respond well to ultimatums delivered from New York, Washington, London or Brussels and a new diplomatic approach was needed to engage the Sudanese government.

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton demanded an apology last Friday after Malloch Brown said in an interview with The Independent newspaper that Blair and Bush needed "to get beyond this posturing and grandstanding".

The Reuters article goes on to say:

Malloch Brown said a broader coalition of countries was needed to press Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to put an end to "an outrage" -- including China and Arab states.

He also called for a more realistic medium-term "carrot and stick" strategy to give Sudan, a long poor country enjoying an oil boom, an interest in cooperating over Darfur while keeping a potential "choke hold" on trade and more war crimes indictments against Sudanese officials if it did not comply.

Gosh that Roast Crow must be tasting good to M&M Brown right about now. "Would you like another serving Mr. Brown? Oh, you're full? O.K."

Joerg-Atlantic Review said...

It's all a bloody mess.

Re: Jan Pronk: If the AU is willing to do the job and can do the job, that's great. Sudan is on their continent. It would mean a lot for Africa. It would send a good symbolical message. I am no expert on Africa, but I think it would make a difference. There are many more conflicts in Africa, which the AU might solve, if they succeed in Darfur.

Besides, the AU is less associated with the evil imperialist West, if you know what I mean.

However, if they are not really interested in solving it, then the UN has to go in.

"Bet you 5:1 that the U.S.A. is going in with combat forces in order to enforce that resolution and make way for UN peacekeepers to follow."

Okay. What time frame do you have in mind and how many combat forces as minimum?
I think I am willing to bet with you!

Thanks for mentioning the Atlantic Review.

Here is a direct link to all our posts relating to Darfur in chronological order (oldest posts at the bottom):
http://atlanticreview.org/plugin/tag/Darfur

Thus everytime we write a post about Darfur, it is automatically filed on that page as well.

I plan on writing a new post re what to do on Darfur.

JayJanson said...

Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported, History News Network, OpEdNews

While there is great sorrow and indignation over the suffering and
loss of life in the Sudan, early U.S. involvement in the war goes
unmentioned.

If the history of early U.S. involvement in favor of war in the Sudan
was brought back into public and Congressional awareness, Americans
might awake to their responsibility to alleviate suffering in Darfur
with more generous humanitarian aid and contributions to stop a war
once desired and backed by our CIA.

Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported

by Jay Janson, republished by History News Network and Global
Research, OperationSudan, UK IndyMedia, and 20 other sites from
OpEdNews, January 23, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jay_jans_070121_darfur___hand_ringin.htm

There has been a glaring omission in the U.S. media presentation of
the Darfur tragedy. The compassion demonstrated, mostly in words,
until recently, has not been accompanied by a recognition of U.S.
complicity, or at least involvement, in the war which has led to the
enormous suffering and loss of life that has been taking place in
Darfur for many years.

In 1978 oil was discovered in Southern Sudan. Rebellious war began
five years later and was led by John Garang, who had taken military
training at infamous Fort Benning, Georgia. "The US government
decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment
through the 'front-line' states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to
help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime."
[Federation of American Scientists fas.org]

Between 1983 and the peace agreement signed in January 2005, Sudan's
civil war took nearly two million lives and left millions more
displaced. Garang became a First Vice President of Sudan as part of
the peace agreement in 2005. From 1983, "war and famine-related
effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and,
according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a
period of two decades."
[CIA Fact Book -entry Sudan]

The BBC obituary of John Garang, who died in a plane crash shortly
afterward, describes him as having "varied from Marxism to drawing
support from Christian fundamentalists in the US." "There was always
confusion on central issues such as whether the Sudan People's
Liberation Army was fighting for independence for southern Sudan or
merely more autonomy. Friends and foes alike found the SPLA's human
rights record in southern Sudan and Mr Garang's style of governance
disturbing." Gill Lusk - deputy editor of Africa Confidential and a
Sudan specialist who interviewed the ex-guerrilla leader several
times over the years was quoted by BBC, "John Garang did not tolerate
dissent and anyone who disagreed with him was either imprisoned or
killed."

CIA use of tough guys like Garang in Sudan, Savimbi in Angola, Mobutu
in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), had been
reported, even in mass media, though certainly not featured or
criticized, but presently, this is of course buried away from public
awareness and meant to be forgotten, as commercial media focuses on
presenting the U.S. wars of today in a heroic light. It has
traditionally been the chore of progressive, alternate and
independent journalism to see that their deathly deeds supported by
U.S. citizens tax dollars are not forgotten, ultimately not accepted
and past Congresses and Presidents held responsible, even in
retrospect, when not in real time.

Oil and business interests remain paramount and although Sudan is on
the U.S. Government's state sponsors of terrorism list, the United
States alternately praises its cooperation in tracking suspect
individuals or scolds about the Janjaweed in Darfur. National Public
Radio on May 2, 2005 had Los Angeles Times writer Ken Silverstein
talk about his article "highlighting strong ties between the U.S. and
Sudanese intelligence services, despite the Bush administration's
criticism of human-rights violation in the Sudan." Title was "Sudan,
CIA Forge Close Ties, Despite Rights Abuses." Nicholas Kristof, of
The New York Times, won a 2006 Pulitzer Prize for "his having alerted
this nation and the world to these massive crimes against humanity.
He made six dangerous trips to Darfur to report names and faces of
victims of the genocide for which President Bush had long before
indicted the government of Sudan to the world's indifference."
[Reuters] But last November saw the opening of a new U.S. consulate
in Juba the capital of the Southern region. (Maybe consider this an
example of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" especially where oil is
involved.)

The point is there is human suffering at mammoth level proportions.
Humanitarian activists are trying to pry open the purse strings of an
administration and congress willing to spend billions upon billions
to get people killed and keep them in their place, namely, at our
feet. Reminding Congress of what needs to be atoned for because of
past policies of supporting war and human destruction could
eventually make present policies of war intolerable. Americans are
presently not exactly conscious stricken about dead and maimed Iraqis
and Afghans, for commerical media always keeps of most of the human
particulars of war crimes modestly out of sight, dramatizing much
lesser losses and suffering of American military personal abroad.

Darfur made the headlines again because a governor of presidential
timber was building up his foreign policy credentials. Meanwhile we
are going to continue to see newsreels of our mass media depressing
us with scenes of starving children, basically as testimony of how
evil another Islamic nation's government is, so we can feel good -
and want to purchase the products needing the advertising - which
pays for the entertainment/news programs - which keep viewers in the
dark about THEIR contribution to the suffering brought upon those
people all the way over there in Africa.

Just try to put 4 and 2 million of anything into perspective. We are
talking about an equivalent to the sets of eyes of half the
population of Manhattan. Imagine one of us, whether a precious child
,a handsome man, a beautiful women, - to the tune of, (dirge of), one
times four million, half of us dead. Sorry! It has no impact right?
We realize that, remembering the words of Joseph Stalin (of all
people), "One man's death is a tragedy, a thousand, is a statistic."
There is absolutely no way we can whip up enough anguish to match a
total of four million displaced and two million dead Sudanese, unless
we could be of a mind and heart with Martin Luther King dealing with
three million dead Vietnamese, also as in this case, over on the
other side of the world, far from our living rooms - "So it is that
those of us who are yet determined that "America will be" are led
down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our
land." (MLK, 1967, "Beyond Vietnam")

This writer remembers reading newspapers articles about the U.S.
backing the Southern Sudan rebellion way back then. If we had
supported a side that wound up winning, we would be bragging about
our having supported 'freedom fighters'. But we just threw a lot of
money and outdated weapons at a John Garang in the Sudan, as we did
with Jonas Savimbi in Angola, to the ultimate destruction of millions
of people, and they LOST! Like we did in Vietnam, and half-way lost
in Korea, and now are mid-way losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jesus!
Calculating the chances of an investment in human life and money
coming to a fruition of sorts - that is certainly the job of any
intelligence gathering agency! What we have had is an Agency using
its gathered intelligence to do unintelligent things because, as our
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote more than a hundred and twenty-five years
ago, "Things are in the saddle and ride herd over men" (trampling
others under foot, we might add)

The European Union is under pressure from inside to assure that a
United Nations force of 20,000 men will be sent to Darfur as required
by Security Council resolution 1706, and to threaten sanctions in
order to halt a war the U.S. was originally interested to see begun.

The U.N. Security Council will receive a list from the International
Criminal Court of those Sudanese officials who could be charged with
war crimes. The list is expected include some members of rebel
organizations among Sudanese government officials and Janjaweed
militias. There assuredly will be no names on the list of
non-Sudanese officials of nations which were known to have involved
themselves in this Sudanese civil war contrary to accepted provisions
and obligations of U.N. membership. But we can know that the
responsibility for war, slaughter, rape and theft in Sudan extends
beyond the leaders of those murderously weilding guns and swords.

It will be good if outside influence will now be focused on peace,
but citizens best be vigilant of their nation's foreign policy
intentions. The world has heard many protestations that oil is not a
reason for war, but blood and oil has been known to mix.

Take action - contact your local newspaper or congress people:
That the U.S. use its economic power humanely, to promote peace in
the Sudan

Black River Eagle said...

We have had a visit today from Jay Janson, author of the article reproduced in full above "Early CIA Involvement in Darfur has Gone Unreported". Thank you Jay for sharing this important information and your views re: the Darfur Crisis with us. As you can see I have posted your article in full as formatted in your comment.

For those readers who would like to read the original web version of this January 23, 2007 article please visit the History News Network at the URL link below:

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/34473.html