An Open Letter about "Witnessing Darfur: A Benefit for the People of Darfur"

[three_sixty]

RE: An Open Letter about the June 21, 2006 event:
> Witnessing Darfur: A Benefit for the People of Darfur
>
>
> Sunday, 18 June 2006
> Dear Friends,
>
> We are writing to express our concern over the upcoming June 21
event:
> WITNESSING DARFUR, to be held at Smith College, for which many local
> religious, cultural or political organizations are co-sponsors (see
> bottom*). Like you we deeply believe in the need to alleviate the
> people of Darfur's suffering, however, we strongly feel that the
> position being taken, which many local organizations have supported,
> namely that the Islamic government of Sudan is committing genocide
> against the "African" people of Darfur, does not accurately reflect
or
> fully address the complexities and realities of the situation.
>
> We strongly believe that the situation in Darfur should be placed in
a
> wider context and the role of the United States and other external
> actors MUST be acknowledged and dealt with honestly if there is to be
> peace and stability in Darfur, Sudan or indeed an improvement of
basic
> conditions. We encourage people to think carefully and examine the
> history of humanitarian aid organizations before making any financial
> contributions: it is well documented that certain organizations
> working in Sudan have been involved in very dubious activities
> counterproductive to expressed or publicized humanitarian aims.
>
> We respectfully ask that people actively seek out and examine
> different points of view. We emphasize that we are not trying to
> malign or attack either any sponsor of this event, the producers of
> the film(s) to be shown, or speaker Dr. Eric Reeves of Smith College;
> rather we are calling for an open dialogue now and in the future. If
> the U.S. wants to end the violence in Darfur and elsewhere its first
> step should be to stop participating in it. We believe that our first
> step as US citizens and residents should be to speak openly and
> honestly and to hold the US government accountable. We find it
> increasingly difficult to do so within the United States: can we
> expect that it will be done in a far away, oil-rich country like
> Sudan? (Petroleum is one of Darfur's several coveted resources.)
>
> We respectfully encourage all those who wish to allocate funds for
aid
> in Darfur to do so, but to write them after careful examination of
ALL
> the facts. We respectfully ask the Community Foundation of Western
> Massachusetts to HOLD all Sudan Aid Funds received, to date, or
> subsequently, for the same reasons. We call on co-sponsor Mayor Clare
> Higgins and the town of Northampton to hold a public hearing,
> immediately, where the entire spectrum of issues can be openly and
> publicly aired. Given the gravity of the situation and people's
desire
> to alleviate the very real suffering in Darfur, we ask the sponsors
of
> this event, and people concerned about the Darfur situation, to press
> for this hearing to occur immediately.
>
> We urge you to read the SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION we have provided
> below; this is by no means an exhaustive or comprehensive sampling of
> relevant issues. We also ask that you circulate this letter widely,
> forward to your organizations' mailing list, to all interested
> parties, and the press.
>
> With sincerity and best wishes,
>
> Deborah Chandler, graphic designer and activist, Northampton, MA
> 413-584-9160
>
> Dimitri Oram, writer & researcher, Northampton, MA
> , 413-330-2034
>
> Doug Wight, writer & activist, Northampton MA
> "Doug Wight"
>
> Keith Harmon Snow, genocide & human rights investigator,
Williamsburg, MA.
> < www.allthingspass.com >, 413-626-3800.
> {Contractual experience in the human rights arena includes: [a]
> Consultant on Genocide, United Nations: Ethiopia, 2005; (b) Genocide
> Investigator, Genocide Watch : Sudan &
>
> Ethiopia, 2004; [c] Genocide Investigator, Survivor's Rights
> International < www.survivorsrightsinternational.org >:
> Sudan and
> Ethiopia, 2004; [d] work at the International Criminal Tribunal on
> Rwanda (2001). Also independent human rights researcher in the Dem.
> Rep. of Congo, 2004-2006; ten years experience in 17 countries in
> Africa.
>
> ***************************************************************
>
> SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
>
> Undisclosed information about the current geopolitical realities
> regarding the Darfur conflict include the facts about the U.S. was
> funding and supporting forces in Southern Sudan (Sudan People's
> Liberation Army & Movement: SPLA/M) throughout the 1990s and beyond.
> We believe the US is still supporting rebel forces in Darfur thus
> actively contributing to the conflict. We are aware these are strong
> charges but there is plenty of documented evidence for the former
> charge and a good deal of circumstantial evidence for the latter. A
> quick sampling reveals:
>
> • "The Clinton administration has launched a covert campaign to
> destabilize the government of Sudan which it considers a key
supporter
> of international terrorism and instability in the Middle East. More
> than $20 million of military equipment, including radios, uniforms
and
> tents will be shipped to Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda in the next few
> weeks. Although the equipment is earmarked for the armed forces of
> those countries, much of it will be passed on to the Sudan People's
> Liberation Army (SPLA), which is preparing an offensive against the
> government in Khartoum." (James Adams "Americans Move to Destabilize
> Sudanese Regime," Sunday Times, Nov. 17, 1996);
> • "U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had a surprise meeting
> in Kampala (Uganda) Wednesday with Sudanese opposition leaders
> including SPLA rebel chief John Garang in what was seen as a move
> further pressuring Khartoum's Islamic fundamentalist leaders.
Albright
> told reporters that Washington sought to show top-level support for
> efforts to secure political change in Sudan, where Garang's Sudanese
> People's Liberation Army in the Christian and animist South has
fought
> troops of the Moslem North since 1983." (Dec. 10, 1997, Deutsch
Presse
> Agenteur);
> • "Welcome to the 1980s. Long live Ronald Reagan. Remember the
> scenario—a rebel group being trained and armed by the CIA to topple a
> sovereign government, cross-border incursions from secluded camps,
and
> the whole destabilization exercise backed by international sanctions
> and a massive propaganda campaign. It sounds like Nicaragua or Angola
> circa 1984. In fact it's Sudan 1998." (Jonathan Steele, "Stop this
war
> now; The US could remove the threat of starvation for thousands of
> Sudanese May 1, 1998 The Guardian);
> • "[T]o the peril of regional stability, the Clinton Administration
> has used northern Uganda as a military training ground for southern
> Sudanese rebels fighting the Muslim government of Khartoum...The
> people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is
> US government policy said former president Carter in an interview
last
> week in Mozambique "The US is committed to overthrowing the
government
> in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by
> policies of the United States" Kurt Schillinger "Carter, Others say
> Clinton has faltered on Africa" Dec. 8, 1999 Boston Globe).
>
> A confirmed and egregious violation of international law was the U.S.
> bombing of Sudan's sole pharmaceutical plant in 1998 with all the
> misery and death that followed. With a background like that isn't it
> possible that the U.S. is still covertly intervening in Sudan
> especially Darfur? Is it mere coincidence that the rebels in Darfur
> launched their first major attacks the month that USAID set up its
> mission in Darfur?
>
> • "Under the Bush administration, the work of USAID has become
> increasingly politicized. But over Sudan, in particular, two of its
> most senior officials have long held strong personal views. Both
> Natsios, a former vice-president of the Christian charity World
> Vision, and [Roger] Winter have long been hostile to the Sudanese
> government." (U.S. 'hyping' Darfur Genocide Fears by Peter Beaumont,
> 03 October 2004, The Observer)
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1318643,00.html
>
> The U.N., the European Union, Medecins Sans Frontieres, aid groups,
> U.N. officials and human rights groups have all questioned the
> genocide claims.
>
> While no one doubts there is horrendous death and suffering in Darfur
> use of the word genocide has been used to put all blame on the
> government, exonerate the rebels and prevent peace. Indeed, as Emily
> Wax writes "that label only seems to have strengthened Sudan's
rebels;
> they believe they don't need to negotiate with the government and
> think they will have U.S. support when they commit attacks. Peace
> talks have broken down seven times, partly because the rebel groups
> have walked out of negotiations." (Washington Post, "5 Truths About
> Darfur," April 21, 2006)
>
> The African Union "peacekeeping" mission in Darfur includes U.S.
> military personnel; training and logistical support by the U.S.
> military has also been provided. (See: Department of Defense, "U.S.
> Transports Rwanda Forces to Sudan":
>
>
> Rwandan Defense Forces sent to Darfur are themselves responsible for
> crimes against humanity and acts of genocide in the Democratic
> Republic of Congo, and these troops are highly linked to the U.S.
> military (Rwanda New Times, 15 May 2006). The U.S. military's
European
> Command (EUCOM) is also partnered with Uganda, and working with
> Ugandan troops, and Uganda's role in Sudanese affairs mirrors its
role
> in Congo: clandestine guerrilla activities, massacres, rapes,
> extortion, gun-running and plundering of natural resources. These
have
> all been widely documented by numerous international human rights
> bodies.
>
> The African Union mission also included supporting operations by
> private military contractor Dyncorp: Dyncorp was caught running a sex
> slave ring in Bosnia, was sued for illegally spraying toxic
herbicides
> in Ecuador, believed to have smuggled drugs from Colombia and is
> generally accused of brutal behavior wherever it goes. Pacific
> Architects and Engineers (PAE) is also on the AU job. According to
> Corpwatch: PAE "has a history of being accused of overcharging."
Also,
> PAE "already provides[d] staff for a so-called Civilian Protection
> Monitoring Team (CPMT) which monitors human rights in Sudan under the
> State Department contract. The CPMT office is run by Brigadier
General
> Frank Toney (retired), who was previously commander of Special Forces
> for the United States Army and organized covert missions into Iraq
and
> Kuwait in the first Gulf War."
>
> Could these mercenary groups be involved in helping the rebel groups?
> It is also uncomfortable that a State Department official connected
to
> Sudan issues who wished to remain anonymous said: "We are not allowed
> to fund a political party or agenda under United States law, so by
> using private contractors, we can get around those provisions. Think
> of this as somewhere between a covert program run by the CIA and an
> overt program run by the United States Agency for International
> Development. It is a way to avoid oversight by Congress." (CorpWatch
> Oct. 21, 2004)
>
> It's also true that a number of humanitarian groups are far from
> impartial. Several of them were and probably still are smuggling
> weapons into Sudan and working toward regime change. Norwegian
> People's Aid (NPA) was caught red-handed and its role in supplying
> arms to the SPLA was the subject of a 1999 Norwegian television
> documentary, entitled 'Weapons Smuggling in Sudan'. "CSI [Christian
> Solidarity International], along with the U.S.-based groups Voice of
> the Martyrs and Samaritan's Purse (run by Franklin Graham, the son of
> Billy Graham), are among a handful of Christian groups that have
taken
> sides in the dispute. They work exclusively in southern Sudan—and
> provide not only humanitarian aid but also political and sometimes
> logistical support for the southern rebels...Even during the peace
> talks, they've lobbied the U.S. government to provide military aid
and
> weaponry to the SPLM...According to Human Rights Watch, the SPLM,
like
> Khartoum, has committed numerous human-rights violations." (Fighting
a
> Peace Plan: Some Christian aid groups are supporting the rebels, by
E.
> Benjamin Skinner, August 18, 2003 NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL.)
>
> To the best of our knowledge Eric Reeves has never discussed the
> active US role in destabilizing Sudan despite his years of research.
> We feel compelled to ask why this is the case. We also believe that
he
> has not dealt straightforwardly with past SPLA crimes including
> attacks on humanitarian aid workers, sexual violence and the
> recruitment of child soldiers, bringing them up only while asserting
> that "there is no equivalence" between the rebels and the government
> of Sudan. We are also worried by Eric Reeves's publicly stated
> position of "regime change," where Sudan's government be "removed by
> whatever means are necessary", and by his call for "comprehensive
> economic sanctions" and the formation of a new government by external
> powers (Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2004). We feel such a stance is
> antithetical to an antiwar movement based on opposition to imperial
> violence and intervention in the affairs of other nations.
>
> We do not excuse violence, murder, or sexual atrocities committed by
> any side, but we question the predominant version of events in
> Darfur—which we believe is grossly disinformational and
> one-sided—presented by the mass media and by both Right- and
Left-wing
> political factions in the United States. We want to know where money
> marked for "Sudan Aid" is going, and we do not so quickly accept some
> of the answers that are being given. We are greatly disturbed by the
> fact that the ultra-Right Wing organization Center for Security
> Policy, a strong proponent of multi-billion dollar programs in
> National Missile Defense and a tool of the military industrial
complex
> is advocating divestment from the same firms Eric Reeves has and is
> targeting. [1]
>
> We note that the organization Save the Children is closely tied to
> USAID, its board of trustees includes one retired Rear Admiral, and
> almost all the others (15) are connected to the mainstream US media
> (ABC, CBS, Hollywood). More concerning, Save the Children is funded
in
> part by Exxon-Mobil (according to an Exxon-Mobil corporate report) to
> build a road through neighboring Chad—a country with a heavy U.S.
> military involvement—to the Darfur region: we are concerned that this
> may be for strategic and military purposes cloaked under the banner
of
> humanitarian aid and poverty alleviation.
>
> The role of USAID official Roger Winter with the U.S. Committee for
> Refugees includes organizing support for the Rwanda Patriotic Front
> invasion of Rwanda in 1990; the U.S. Committee for Refugees remains a
> highly unusual political organization with a specious agenda.
>
> The director/advisers of the International Rescue Committee include
> Henry Kissinger.
>
>
> [1] See: <
>
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=01-F_68
> >;
> please also examine the CSP's take on the antiwar movement
> .
>
> ----------------------------------------------------

*> Sponsored by:
> Congregation B'nai Israel Darfur Action Group
>
> Co-sponsors include: Al-Baqin Mosque · American Friends Service
> Committee, Western Mass. · Amnesty International USA/Group 76 · Beit
> Ahavah · Catholic Social Justice Committee of Greater Northampton ·
> Edwards Church · Episcopal Peace Fellowship of Grace Church, Amherst
·
> Hampshire Interfaith Council · Jewish Family Services of Western
Mass.
> · Mayor Clare Higgins · National Association of Social Workers,
> Pioneer Valley Chapter · Northampton Committee to Stop the War in
Iraq
> · Northampton Friends Meeting · Physicians for Social Responsibility,
> Pioneer Valley · Progressive Christian Voice Task Force, The First
> Churches · Safe Passage · Smith College · Unitarian Society of
> Northampton and Florence · The Vestry of St. John's Episcopal Church,
> Northampton · Western Mass. Darfur Coalition

[three_sixty]

this is a great template for ones who wish to present an alternative view of the mainstream push to "save Darfur."

[three_sixty]

The U.S. role in Darfur, Sudan / De rol van de VS in Darfur / Pourquoi les USA s'intéressent tant au Darfou / O papel dos Estados Unidos no Darfur / Die Rolle der USA in der sudanesischen Provinz Darfur / USA´s rolle i Darfur

By Sara Flounders
June 3, 2006

What is fueling the campaign now sweeping the U.S. to “Stop Genocide in Darfur”? Campus organizations have suddenly begun organizing petitions, meetings and calls for divestment. A demonstration was held April 30 on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to “Save Darfur.”

Again and again it is said that “something” must be done. “Humanitarian forces” and “U.S. peacekeepers” must be deployed immediately to stop “ethnic cleansing.” UN troops or NATO forces must be used to stop “genocide.” The U.S. government has a “moral responsibility to prevent another Holocaust.”

Outrage is provoked by media stories of mass rapes and photos of desperate refugees. The charge is that tens of thousands of African people are being killed by Arab militias backed by the Sudanese government. Sudan is labeled as both a “terrorist state” and a “failed state.” Even at anti-war rallies, signs have been distributed proclaiming “Out of Iraq—Into Darfur.” Full-page ads in the New York Times have repeated the call.

Who is behind the campaign and what actions are they calling for?

Even a cursory look at the supporters of the campaign shows the prominent role of right-wing evangelical Christians and major Zionist groups to “Save Darfur.”

A Jerusalem Post article of April 27 headlined “U.S. Jews Leading Darfur Rally Planning” described the role of prominent Zionist organizations in organizing the April 30 rally. A full-page ad for the rally in the New York Times was signed by a number of Jewish organizations, including the UJA—Federation of NY and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

But it wasn’t just Zionist groups that called it. The rally was sponsored by a coalition of 164 organizations that included the National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Alliance and other religious groups that have been the strongest supporters of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. The Kansas-based evangelical group Sudan Sunrise helped arrange buses and speakers, did extensive fund raising and co-hosted a 600-person dinner.

This was hardly an anti-war or social justice rally. The organizers had a personal meeting with President George W. Bush just before the rally. He told them: “I welcome your participation. And I want to thank the organizers for being here.”

Originally the demonstration was projected to draw a turnout of more than 100,000. Media coverage generously reported “several thousands,” ranging from 5,000 to 7,000. The rally was overwhelming white. Despite sparse numbers, it got wide media coverage, focusing on celebrity speakers like Academy Award winner George Clooney. Top Democrats and Republicans gave it their blessing, including U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. Corzine, by the way, spent $62 million of his own money to get elected.

The corporate media gave this rally more prominence than either the anti-war rally of 300,000 in New York City on the day before or the millionfold demonstrations across the country for immigrant rights on the day after.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State Condo leezza Rice, Gen. Wesley Clark and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have all argued in favor of intervention in Sudan.

These leading architects of imperialist policy often refer to another model when they call for this intervention: the successful “humanitarian” war on Yugoslavia that established a U.S./NATO administration over Kosovo after a massive bombing campaign.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington issued a “genocide alert”—the first such alert ever issued—and 35 evangelical Chris tian leaders signed a letter urging President Bush to send U.S. troops to stop genocide in Darfur. A special national curriculum for students was established to generate grassroots support for U.S. intervention.

Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have embraced the campaign. Liberal voices such as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Rabbi Michael Lerner of TIKKUN and Human Rights Watch have also pushed the campaign to “Save Darfur.”

Diversion from Iraq debacle

The criminal invasion and massive bombing of Iraq, the destruction of its infrastructure that left the people without water or basic electricity, and the horrible photos of the U.S. military’s use of torture at Abu Ghraib prison created a world outcry. At its height, in September 2004, then Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell went to Sudan and announced to the world that the crime of the century—“a genocide”—was taking place there. The U.S. solution was to demand the United Nations impose sanctions on one of the poorest countries on earth and that U.S. troops be sent there as “peacekeepers.”

But the rest of the UN Security Council was unwilling to accept this view, the U.S. “evidence” or the proposed action.

The campaign against Sudan increased even as evidence was being brought forward that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a total lie. The same media that had given credibility to the U.S. government’s claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because that country had “weapons of mass destruction” switched gears to report on “war crimes” by Arab forces in Sudan.

This Darfur campaign accomplishes several goals of U.S. imperialist policy. It further demonizes Arab and Muslim people. It diverts attention from the human rights catastrophe caused by the brutal U.S. war and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

It is also an attempt to deflect attention from the U.S. financing and support of Israel’s war on the Palestinian people.

Most important, it opens a new front in the determination of U.S. corporate power to control the entire region.

U.S. interest in Sudan

Sudan is the largest country in Africa in area. It is strategically located on the Red Sea, immediately south of Egypt, and borders on seven other African countries. It is about the size of Western Europe but has a population of only 35 million people.

Darfur is the western region of Sudan. It is the size of France, with a population of just 6 million.

Newly discovered resources have made Sudan of great interest to U.S. corporations. It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of Saudi Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained its independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudan’s oil policy, the U.S. imperialist government has made every effort to stop its development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration, drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of Sudan’s oil.

U.S. policy revolves around shutting down the export of oil through sanctions and inflaming national and regional antagonisms. For over two decades U.S. imperialism supported a separatist movement in the south of Sudan, where oil was originally found. This long civil war drained the central government’s resources. When a peace agreement was finally negotiated, U.S. attention immediately switched to Darfur in western Sudan.

Recently, a similar agreement between the Sudanese government and rebel groups in Darfur was rejected by one of the groups, so the fighting continues. The U.S. poses as a neutral mediator and keeps pressing Khartoum for more concessions but “through its closest African allies helped train the SLA and JEM Darfuri rebels that initiated Khartoum’s violent reaction.” (www.afrol.com)

Sudan has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world. Over 400 ethnic groups have their own languages or dialects. Arabic is the one common language. Greater Khartoum, the largest city in the country, has a population of about 6 million. Some 85 percent of the Sudanese population is involved in subsistence agriculture or raising livestock.

The U.S. corporate media is unanimous in simplistically describing the crisis in Darfur as atrocities committed by the Jan jawid militias, supported by the central government in Khartoum. This is described as an “Arab” assault on “African” people.

This is a total distortion of reality. As the Black Commentator, Oct. 27, 2004, points out: “All parties involved in the Darfur conflict—whether they are referred to as ‘Arab’ or as ‘African,’ are equally indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local.” The whole population of Darfur speaks Arabic, along with many local dialects. All are Sunni Muslim.

Drought, famine and sanctions

The crisis in Darfur is rooted in intertribal fighting. A desperate struggle has developed over increasingly scarce water and grazing rights in a vast area of Northern Africa that has been hit hard by years of drought and growing famine.

Darfur has over 35 tribes and ethnic groups. About half the people are small subsistence farmers, the other half nomadic herders. For hundreds of years the nomadic population grazed their herds of cattle and camels over hundreds of miles of grassy lowlands. Farmers and herders shared wells. For over 5,000 years, this fertile land sustained civilizations in both western Dar fur and to the east, all along the Nile River.

Now, due to the drought and the encroaching great Sahara Desert, there isn’t enough grazing land or enough farmland in what could be the breadbasket of Africa. Irrigation and development of Sudan’s rich resources could solve many of these problems. U.S. sanctions and military intervention will solve none of them.

Many people, especially children, have died in Sudan of totally preventable and treatable diseases because of a U.S. cruise missile attack, ordered by President Bill Clinton on Aug. 20, 1998, on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. This plant, which had produced cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis, provided 60 percent of the available medicine in Sudan.

The U.S. claimed Sudan was operating a VX poison gas facility there. It produced no evidence to back up the charge. This simple medical facility, totally destroyed by the 19 missiles, was not rebuilt nor did Sudan receive a penny of compensation.

UN/NATO role in Sudan

Presently 7,000 African Union troops are in Darfur. Their logistical and technical back-up is provided by U.S. and NATO forces. In addition, thousands of UN personnel are overseeing refugee camps for hundreds of thousands dislocated by the drought, famine and war. All of these outside forces do more than hand out needed food. They are a source of instability. As capitalist would-be conquerors have done for hundreds of years, they consciously play one group off against another.

U.S. imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region. Chad, which is directly west of Darfur, last year participated in a U.S.-organized international military exer cise that, according to the U.S. Defense Depart ment, was the largest in Africa since World War II. Chad is a former French colony, and both French and U.S. forces are heavily involved in funding, training and equipping the army of its military ruler, Idriss Deby, who has supported rebel groups in Darfur.

For more than half a century, Britain ruled Sudan, encountering widespread resis tance. British colonial policy was rooted in divide-and-conquer tactics and in keeping its colonies underdeveloped and isolated in order to plunder their resources.

U.S. imperialism, which has replaced the European colonial powers in many parts of the world, in recent years has been sabotaging the economic independence of countries trying to emerge from colonial underdevelopment. Its main economic weapons have been sanctions combined with “structural adjustment” demands made by the International Monetary Fund, which it controls. In return for loans, the target governments must cut their budgets for development of infrastructure.

How can demands from organizations in the West for sanctions, leading to further underdevelopment and isolation, solve any of these problems?

Washington has often used its tremendous power in the UN Security Council to get resolutions endorsing its plans to send U.S. troops into other countries. None were on humanitarian missions.

U.S. troops carrying the UN flag invaded Korea in 1950 in a war that resulted in more than 4 million deaths. Still flying that flag, they have occupied and divided the Korean peninsula for over 50 years.

At the urging of the U.S., UN troops in 1961 were deployed to the Congo, where they played a role in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the country’s first prime minister.

The U.S. was able to get a UN mandate in 1991 for its massive bombing of the entire Iraqi civilian infrastructure, including water purification plants, irrigation and food processing plants—and for the 13 years of starvation sanctions that resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis.

UN troops in Yugoslavia and in Haiti have been a cover for U.S. and European intervention and occupation—not peace or reconciliation.

The U.S. and European imperialist powers are responsible for the genocidal slave trade that decimated Africa, the genocide of the Indigenous population of the Americas, the colonial wars and occupations that looted three-quarters of the globe. It was German imperialism that was responsible for the genocide of Jewish people. To call for military intervention by these same powers as the answer to conflicts among the people of Darfur is to ignore 500 years of history.

----------------------------------------

Sara Flounders went to Sudan just after the bombing of the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998 with John Parker as part of an International Action Center fact-finding delegation led by Ramsey Clark.


http://www.iacenter.org/Africa/dafur-sf06032006.htm