Comments on The Liberator Magazine :: Art. Culture. Education. Politics. Truth...: Should Southern Sudan form independent nation?

i think identifying the u.s. interest here is simp...

2007-05-18T17:07:00.000-04:00

i think identifying the u.s. interest here is simple this: they have just as much interest in allowing the genocide to continue, or rather to "half ass" it -- i.e. denounce it while not committing 100% with the force required to stop it now -- as china does... they want those oil fields just as much as china does. funny cause i'm watching this democracy now interview on how more than a quarter of the u.s' oil will be coming from Africa and how they already use more oil from africa than from saudi arabia... check the nigeria post i updated today here on the blog for the interview...

although when lafayette wrote his article he said that Khartoum claimed they weren't equipped to stop the janjaweed, i think that there are three governments who can stop this -- Khartoum, the U.S. and China... and all of them benefit i think from being two-face tho, because all of them benefit (or believe they can benefit somewhere down the line) from a change in the face of Darfur.

Khartoum wants that oil too, the only difference is that they are seller and the U.S. and China a buyers. But oil and money are still common interests for all sides.

I think we have to see the janjaweed sort of like blackwater in iraq, or the Ethiopians in Somalia -- essentially mercenaries being backed/encouraged/enabled through inaction or pseudo-neutrality.

Thanks for the link. With regard to your comment,...

2007-05-18T16:04:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the link.

With regard to your comment, I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. The only countries with the military resources to stop the genocide by imposing troops between civilians on the ground and the Khartoum government are the United States and China.
China is not going to intervene because of economic interests, while the U.S. is currently conducting an illegal occupation in the Middle East and certainly would face open hostility from Khartoum if it were to intervene militarily.
Meanwhile, both the U.N. and the African Union are too feeble and ineffective to step in.
I like how Uganda and Kenya got involved to broker a peace treaty last time, and obviously I would like to see more intra-African cooperation.
So, there are some tough choices on the line, which I don't have the answers for, and from your response, I see you are struggling with too.
I mean its like: do you call in one bully knowing he can stop another bully? Or do you stand by and let someone get beat up senselessly?
What you say about state interest is correct, although I don't see the US and Sudan's interest as being morally equivalent. What is the US interest that is causing them to 'make a half-ass effort'? Like I mentioned earlier, the US is already caught up in one occupation; they have no desire to get caught up in another one.

Lafayette wrote a piece (here) addressing some of ...

2007-05-17T18:04:00.000-04:00

Lafayette wrote a piece (here) addressing some of things you mention.

I agree that the government should be denounced. Period.

Let's not STOP there though, that's only the easy part. That's the part that even the soccer moms can do.

We must also ask, like he says in the article, how does that translate to peace for the people of Darfur?

There must almost always be a "caveat" when dealing with Africa, specifically in the sense that there must be explanation enough of the history to help us remember this is not an unconnected situation...

We've written to representatives and as far as I know didn't see any of our appeals answered or taken into serious consideration, let alone acted out.

Ironically, the Khartoum government and the U.S. government are in similar situations -- both of them have interests that cause their bureaucracies to half-ass efforts to do the one thing that matters... protect the people of Darfur.

They both are looking for ways to save face and not look like accomplices to murder, but those darn political and economic interests of the state (respectively) keep getting in the way (throw China in there too) of saving those people. Shucks.

So the common issue we're dealing with is this state interest in the resources of Sudan as a whole and the fact that none of these states are just, moral, or courageous enough to shake up the status quo.

To add... when the KKK was doing something very similar to what the Janjaweed is now doing but in THIS country... it was the same state bureaucracies that couldn't find the courage or moral ground to cut the red tape and save people's lives who were riding buses on public roads through the southern region of THESE United States.

My first reaction is that yes the south ought to succede. But now I wonder how much good it will actually do? I still lean towards it as a step in a better direction tho. But I really think what needs to be changed is bigger than succession. Because that won't help Darfur and like you suggested might even lead to more chaos in the south. I keep coming to the conclusion that this structure just doesn't work. Pretty soon you'd have outside instigators trying to stick their noses in the business of Southern Sudan via some oppossition faction. What options do that leave? Something new has to grow, something that I haven't seen. But it has to be given room to grow. And that means that peace and soverignty must be attained. Perhaps the institution of the "state" as we know it in this "modern" globalized world is no good for the people of Africa...