The unfortunate thing is, most people just don't care. It's not whites who are being massecred. I still think race is one of the largest subliminal factors in how people react to world news.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The unfortunate thing is, most people just don't care. It's not whites who are being massecred. I still think race is one of the largest subliminal factors in how people react to world news.

See, people say that all the time, but they still don't do anything or even take it upon themselves to investigate what's going on.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov See, people say that all the time, but they still don't do anything or even take it upon themselves to investigate what's going on.

But when Milosevic was killing fellow Europeans, NATO shit a storm..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The conflict in Darfur has withdrawn from the public eye somewhat, but it rages on. With the increase in factionalization of the conflict there doesn't seem to be any real hope of a feasible agreement these days. Talks broke down in Libya recently, largely a part of their not incorporating all the sides in the discussion. What began as a conflict between the Justice and Equality Movement for Darfur (JEM) and Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) allied against the government quickly became muddied by the involvement of Arab tribes on behalf of the government... however, even within the Janjaweed militias there is some fragmentation. There are rumors of a schism on both sides that has brought the Baghara Arabs together with elements of the SLA in opposition to the government - the Baghara is one of the largest groups composing the Janjaweed, and is positioned in closest proximity to the oil fields in south Kordofan. However... they're also notorious slave traders, so it remains unclear what's going on at the moment. But there has been fighting between the SLA and other black African groups, as well as between Arabs. The government seems to be losing control, but it's unclear what their objectives are anyhow. Chaos could be precisely what they hoped to create. In addition, reports of Janjaweed militias moving south of Darfur toward the Dinka and Nuer villages of the south are starting to become more frequent as the 2009 deadline for a vote on secession looms. A lot of people are worried that the government will seek to expand the conflict in Darfur to incorporate parts of the South in an effort to undermine the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was brokered in 2004 and basically promised independence to the South. In any case, I stumbled upon this article today and thought it was a good read that highlighted the complexity of the situation as opposed to the understanding that most Americans seem to have of it. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/...ur_the_politics As you can imagine, since this interview was nearly a year ago, things have only become more complicated on the ground. The more time that goes by, the less the likelihood that a political solution will be reached. And the more people that will die.

Democracy now is fantastic

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Democracy now is fantastic

I agree - there are a number of sites that have done a remarkable job reporting on Darfur and other conflict sites around the world, and it's a damn shame that the majority of PDD residents would rather watch the latest talking head regurgitation of Iran policy.

___________________

Well, Lebezniatnikov, I think the reason why there's no real debate in this thread is because everyone pretty much agrees here. The situation is awful, but as long as China and Russia plays along it's really hard to do something.

The ICC is a really interesting question though. I'm still not sure at all if this is the right decision or not. But, I think it's the right thing to do. Obviously if the ICC is gonna be any use at all, it has to do this, otherwise it would just not do its job. And really, it sends a good signal that not everything is allowed, even if you are a prime minister/president. And also it could be used to negotiate with, like to withdraw the accusations if the Sudanese government cooperate or someting similar. My thoughts aren't clear, but somehow you must in some way be able to prosecute people comitting genocide while they are committing genocide. Otherwise this argument could be made in pretty much all situations, that it would "endanger the peace process".

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Well, Lebezniatnikov, I think the reason why there's no real debate in this thread is because everyone pretty much agrees here. The situation is awful, but as long as China and Russia plays along it's really hard to do something. The ICC is a really interesting question though. I'm still not sure at all if this is the right decision or not. But, I think it's the right thing to do. Obviously if the ICC is gonna be any use at all, it has to do this, otherwise it would just not do its job. And really, it sends a good signal that not everything is allowed, even if you are a prime minister/president. And also it could be used to negotiate with, like to withdraw the accusations if the Sudanese government cooperate or someting similar. My thoughts aren't clear, but somehow you must in some way be able to prosecute people comitting genocide while they are committing genocide. Otherwise this argument could be made in pretty much all situations, that it would "endanger the peace process".

I agree with you, but it's important to recognize that as the ICC stands right now, indictments can't be followed through on, and I think that is the fundamental failing of the international system. As such, the accusation of genocide is steeped in some fairly significant connotation. Remember, Bashir is now the first person in world history accused of genocide in the moment - the Sudanese reaction will likely have a significant impact on the role the international community takes in future conflicts. To bring down an indictment was undoubtedly the "right" thing to do - I just worry that the negative consequences of the move will outweigh the moral significance of a. using the word "genocide" in regards to Darfur for the very first time in an international forum and b. issuing a warning to would-be genocidaires worldwide that their actions do have consequences. I just hope and pray that those consequences don't prove to be toothless. A precedent that is meaningless isn't really a precedent, and I'm worried that the ICC went all-in on a busted hand.

I think there's a great deal to debate on the issue of Darfur. Everybody seems to agree that something needs to be done, but nobody has any ideas. Educated opinions are the stuff debate is made of - for those that don't have an opinion, the de Waal/Prendergast debate that I posted some time ago is a very good place to start.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I agree with you, but it's important to recognize that as the ICC stands right now, indictments can't be followed through on, and I think that is the fundamental failing of the international system. As such, the accusation of genocide is steeped in some fairly significant connotation. Remember, Bashir is now the first person in world history accused of genocide in the moment - the Sudanese reaction will likely have a significant impact on the role the international community takes in future conflicts. To bring down an indictment was undoubtedly the "right" thing to do - I just worry that the negative consequences of the move will outweigh the moral significance of a. using the word "genocide" in regards to Darfur for the very first time in an international forum and b. issuing a warning to would-be genocidaires worldwide that their actions do have consequences. I just hope and pray that those consequences don't prove to be toothless. A precedent that is meaningless isn't really a precedent, and I'm worried that the ICC went all-in on a busted hand.

I definitely see your point, and as I said I'm largely unsure of whether this is good or not. But to not do it would be contra productive I think, kinda like that in the short term I'm sure that Guantanamo will keep some bad guys out, but in the long term that is absolutely not the way to go. Justice must always be fought for, even though some bad political consequences might come out of it.

But also, some European politicans who still denies that there's a genocide going on might wake up which will bring some positive energy, maybe.

Darfur is the only recognized genocide, there are countless others. Every single US president post WW2, if the Nuremberg Laws are applied, would be hanged. There's a genocide going on right this moment, in Iraq. There was a genocide following the first Gulf war, via the use of depleted uranium. Biological warfare = genocide. Economic sanctions = genocide. The state of Israel is responsible for genocide, one example that is completely undebatable btw is the Sabra Shatila massacre. Chechnya, Bosnia, Tibet, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia, El Salvador... the list goes on. The 20th century is replete with examples of genocide. The ones perpetrated by Western States, the US in particular, are obviously not recognized in contemporary political discourse. Darfur is by no means unique, just because the demographic is black, it's has a different impact on the Western guilt ridden conscience (slavery, the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Native Americans). It's good that you're bringing it up and posting useful material here, no one is denying that. But if you going to use words like genocide (which is the case here btw), let's not ignore plenty of other genocides, some of them which are ongoing. Aggression and state sponsored terrorism usually result in genocide too, but those are perpetrated by US and out allies, so they're not recognized.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z

I think you're infusing genocide with the concept of morality. Just because something is wrong or is a crime against humanity doesn't make it genocide. The majority of the examples you cite are horrible, you are correct in that. And many go against the grain of international law. However, there are very few ongoing genocides (using international law as the framework for defining) - the systematic destruction of an entire group of people is thankfully a plateau rarely reached. I don't mean to detract from your point, which is a valid one - there are plenty of other situations in the world that warrant our attention. But it's hard to deny that the killing of 400,000 individuals and the expulsion of a million more is on the same level as the shameful use of depleted uranium shells in a war started by the Iraqis in 1991.

In any case, aggression in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, and as studies show calculated aggressive intervention is often the most effective tactic in ending genocide or ethnic cleansing.

quote:

Study shows some types of military interventions can slow or stop genocide A study published in the latest issue of International Studies Quarterly is the first to examine the effectiveness of military action on the severity of ongoing instances of genocide and polititcide. The study reveals that only overt military interventions that explicitly challenge the perpetrator appear to be effective in reducing the severity of the brutal policies. Military support for targets, or in opposition to the perpetrators, alters the almost complete vulnerability of unarmed civilian targets. And these interventions that directly target the perpetrators were not, on the whole, found to make matters worse for those being attacked. "If actors wish to slow or stop the killing in an ongoing instance of state-sponsored mass murder, they are more likely to be effective if they oppose the perpetrators of the brutal policy," author Matthew Krain states. He finds that even military intervention against the perpetrator by a single country or international organization has a measurable effect in the "typical" case. When a single international actor challenges the aggressor, the probability that the killings will escalate drops while the probability that the killings will decrease jumps. Each additional intervention by another international actor raises the chance of saving lives. Krain's study examines factors affecting all ongoing instances of state-sponsored mass murder from 1955 to 1997 and simulates the effects of interventions on two cases, including the current case of mass murder in Darfur, Sudan. His results also confirm that attempts to intervene as impartial parties seem ineffective. "By finding that increasing the number of interventions against perpetrators of genocide or politicide reduces severity this study confirms that international interventions against perpetrators do save lives," Krain concludes.

___________________

This is pretty sick. As in ugly and sick. Sudanese government is such an evil one, I've always ranked them among the worst ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7921311.stm

Confessions of a Sudanese deserter

quote:

"We were ordered to kill all the women" The International Criminal Court is set to announce whether or not it is to issue a warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan President al-Bashir, for alleged war crimes in Darfur. The Sudanese government has always said the accusations are political but now one of the country's former soldiers, who served in Darfur, has been telling his story to the BBC's Mike Thomson. Khalid (not his real name), a polite and softly spoken man from Darfur, seems reluctant to talk about his past. It is soon clear why. "The orders given to us were to burn the villages completely," he says. "We even had to poison the water wells. We were also given orders to kill all the woman and rape girls under 13 and 14." Khalid, who is of black African origin, says he was forcibly recruited into President Omar al-Bashir's Sudanese army in late 2002. Many couldn't take their all their children. If you saw them you had to shoot and kill "Khalid" He and several other men where he lived were taken to the headquarters of his regiment which was based near the north-western Darfur town of Fasher. He admits to having taken part in seven different attacks on Darfur villages with the help of Janjaweed militia. The first one was in the Korma area in December 2002 several months before the conflict in Darfur officially began. He claims to have been extremely reluctant to carry out the savage orders he was given. "When they asked me to rape the girl, I went and stood in front of her," he said. "Tears came into my eyes. They said: 'You have to rape her. If you don't we will beat you.' I hesitated and they hit me with the butt of a rifle. "But when I went to the girl I couldn't do it. I took her into a corner and lay myself on top of her as if I was raping her for about 10 to 15 minutes. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir waves his walking stick as he opens a hydro-electric dam north of Khartoum on 3 March 2009 President Omar al-Bashir denies backing Darfur militias "Then, I jumped up and came out. They said: 'Did you rape her?' I said: 'Yes, I did'." Khalid says that soon after this he and the other soldiers went back to base. When they got there he was told to join another patrol immediately. When he refused they beat and tortured him, inflicting severe burns on his legs and back. He spent five weeks in a military hospital recovering from his injuries. Before long, he said, he was ordered to join other brutal raids on Darfur villages. I asked him what he was told to do with unarmed civilians who did not resist in any way. "They told us, don't leave anybody, just kill everybody," he said. "Even the children, if left behind in the huts, we had to kill them," he said. "People would cry and run from their huts. "Many couldn't take their all their children. If they had more than two they had to leave them behind. If you saw them you had to shoot and kill." In cold blood Khalid insists that he always fired over the heads of civilians and didn't kill anyone himself despite the orders he was given. He says he could do this without his fellow soldiers noticing but he admits that there was no way he could avoid carrying out orders to torch peoples homes. Refugee from a Sudan government-backed forces attack The six-year conflict has spawned more than two million refugees "I did take part," he admitted. "They forced me. We had no choice. If you didn't they would kill you." Did anyone refuse? "Two of my colleagues refused and they were shot dead." I asked him how the Sudanese officers had justified killing unarmed civilians in cold blood. How they had explained the need to slaughter women, babies and children? He replied: "They said they are the ones who take food and water to the rebels. "They said that if we kill these people and burn their villages then the rebels will not have any supplies so they'll have to move out to the neighbouring country." Close to tears Khalid, who at times appeared close to tears, deserted from the army in 2003 and has now left the country. He says he may never be able to return now that he has spoken out. But, I asked him, if he does go back, will he ever be forgiven by his own people for taking part in these attacks, even if he was forcibly recruited? The aftermath of a Janjaweed attack The war in Darfur began in 2003 when rebel groups took up arms "Up until today they will never have known that it was me," he said. "They will only know that I became a soldier. They wouldn't know what part I took. Even my family don't know where I am." Over the last six years it is estimated that around 300,000 people have died as a result of the conflict in Darfur and a further 2.5 million have been forced to flee their homes. President Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government have always denied that the country's army committed atrocities in the region or commissioned Janjaweed militia to do this on their behalf. It is a claim they repeated firmly when the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced last summer he was seeking an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president. But a nervous Khalid, who fears officials from the court might soon come looking for him, says he is in no doubt who bears full responsibility for the suffering in Darfur. "Omar al-Bashir is in the chair," he said. "He is the first person that is responsible for the genocide, of the killing of the children, of everything. He should never say that 'I did not kill and I don't know'. "If you are head of the country then you are responsible for any crimes done by your soldiers. It is Bashir doing all these things."

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture