July 27, 2004

• A couple of points, Sullivan. 1.) The oil production in Sudan is mainly controlled by Canadian and French oil interests. 2.) There are two seperate things going on in Sudan. The first is the civil war in the South. It is important to call it a civil war because both sides are armed, both sides are using guerilla tactics, and both have significant funding (The rebels in the South are reportedly being funded by Uganda). What's happening in Darful, however, is genocide. However, debate over whether or not the Government of Sudan has any direct involvment in it is not completely proven yet. 3.) Bills have been passed by the Bush administration pressuring Sudan to end it's civil war. And, due to the efforts of that diplomacy of the US and the UN, the fighting in the South has mostly dissipated. Darfur, as the link indicates, is still a clusterfuck. 4.) With the exception of Somalia, the US has not historically had a presence in Africa, for right or wrong. It has been US policy to let the UN and Europe take the initiative. 5.) Sudan is 40th in oil production. Saying that "It's about oil!!!!111!!11!" is quite a stretch. A leap, even.
• ugh...I stopped right here "...he said the ultimate goal of U.S. policy in Darfur is to ensure that Darfur's victims "are cared for." PLEASE! That's like 5% of the US Agenda. With rising production like that, the US is just probably trying to get a good foot in that market before others do... UGH...This administration makes me soooo sick. It's true, we're policing the world.
• Oh, and I almost forgot: 6.)"The United States has imposed economic sanctions against Sudan since November 1997, prohibiting trade between the two countries, as well as investment by U.S. businesses in Sudan. In February 2000, the sanctions were broadened to include a prohibition against U.S. citizens and companies conducting business with the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), an international consortium of petroleum companies currently extracting oil from Sudan." The reason why Bush hasn't placed any sanctions on Sudan is because they're already in place.
• 6.)"The United States has imposed economic sanctions against Sudan since November 1997, prohibiting trade between the two countries, as well as investment by U.S. businesses in Sudan. In February 2000, the sanctions were broadened to include a prohibition against U.S. citizens and companies conducting business with the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), an international consortium of petroleum companies currently extracting oil from Sudan." So in other words we need Bill Clinton back in the White House. Understood. Thanks for clearing that up, shawnj.
• Whawhawha? Bill Clinton did jack and shit for Sudan except throw a couple of tomohawk missiles at at a target that had shaky ties to WMDs and Bin Laden at best. Let us not forget the other African conflicts that he let slide. (On a related note - Is this guy eating his words or what?)
• Sudan warns against intervention The UK has hinted at a possible armed intervention and the UN is discussing imposing sanctions on the militias.
• Also, US calls for UN sanctions. Let me make it clear for you. Sanctions have already been in place. Pressure has been placed by the US on Sudan ongoing for the past three years. I'm not a fan of this administration as I'm sure most monkeys know. However, on the issue of Sudan, the US is not sitting on it's hands, specifically not because of oil interests that are held by Canadian, Chinese, and French interests.
• at at a target that had shaky ties to WMDs and Bin Laden at best. Words fail me. That made my day.
• Sudan has been a shitty place to be a human for many years. You have your Arab Muslim North vs. your Black non-Muslim South. Food has been a choice weapon, and starvation is a common fate for the innocent. Should the US bomb the Sudan Air Force into dust? Should we cluster bomb the Arabs who are victimizing the southerners? I cannot think of another way to get their attention. Sanctions? HA! Ten years from now we will still be hearing stories like this from Sudan.
• Words fail me. That made my day I'm failing to see the point you are making Sullivan, with any posts since the initial FPP. Sudan is fucking fucked up, probably one of the most profoundly so countries in the world right now. But shawnj has a point (six of em) and they're all very valid. I haven't followed your posts enough Sullivan to know if you're being serious or not about the Bill Clinton back in the white house thing, but let's face it, Clinton fucked up in Sudan. He wagged the dog, got called out, and acted like a politician about it. He fucked up Bosnia too.... really, he's not the be-all-end-all that Al Franken wishes he was.* But it is a genocide, and someone needs to help. Bush won't, so let's hope that when/if Kerry gets elected he'll stick true to his words and bring the international community more into this situation. That's the one point of shawnj's that I disagree with; it doesn't matter a flying eff if the US has not historically had presence in Africa -- we're part of the UN, and we're legally and sure as hell morally obliged to stop genocide when we recognize it is taking place. *I honestly believe Kerry to be a much better person and leader than Clinton... Clinton was good, but Al Franken (who is funny, biting, and often times brutally correct in his punditry) wanks off far too much to pictures of Clinton and co.
• oil interests that are held by Canadian, Chinese, and French interests. and Malaysian, Swedish, Austrian. List here.
• we're part of the UN, and we're legally and sure as hell morally obliged to stop genocide when we recognize it is taking place. Oh, I actually quite agree with that. By using that point, I was just trying to debunk the whole genocide for oil meme before it starts spreading. The US has routinely neglected Africa. It's not something I agree with, but it is recent history.
• shawnj, if you really believe that this administration put people over oil then you are naive. This is an administration that has played footsy with a Saudia Arabian prince that is being investigated by the FBI for ties with terrorism. He was also briefed with Iraq war battle plans by Rummy. LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! LONG LIVE BILL CLINTON!!!! And go buy 20 copies of My Life.
• If anyone still has that issue of GQ from about three months back with the much-heralded Colin Powell article, you can find info about the diplomatic efforts with the Sudan there. The story notes that Powell has been quietly working to calm things down over there, something that's been overlooked in the press. Unfortunately GQ doesn't put their stuff online, but it's an interesting read if you can still find a print copy somewhere.
• de Carabas, Colin Powell carries zero weight in the Bush administration.
• if you really believe that this administration put people over oil then you are naive You mean Sudan? Nah, son. You're blaming the wrong Veto-power country. Since the bin Laden strikes, we've been the one putting pressure on Sudan while the other Veto countries reap the spoils of buying Sudan their gunships. I'm not saying that the administration never has put oil over people. I'm just saying that they haven't when it has come to Sudan. This is the wrong tree you're barking up, mate.
• On reading shawnj's article, I thought this was odd: The Bush administration is pushing for a UN Security Council resolution that would threaten sanctions unless Sudan halts the violence in Darfur and allows aid workers into the region. Now, I clearly remember that up a ways in this thread, there was a different article that said there are sanctions, and then one before that said there aren't. Anybody know which it is?
• There are. For American corporations. The sanctions being pushed for in the UN would be for the world.
• Sully, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The US has - under both admins - taken at least a decent role in doing something about the Sudan. Nowhere near enough, of course, but then nobody has. It's a good example of where there isn't a significant power (or, in minor key, oil) interest, the US is not the force for universal evil that many of us lefties might like to paint it as. Sudan is a horrific fuck up for the entire civilised world; the US is probably a little less culpable than most. This current crisis, as I've said before, has gone unchecked and unreported for nearly a year now - and a lot of us think it should have been paid a lot more attention to (personally, I'm involved in a journalistic-type project right now in which the under-reporting of the Sudan was a major motivating factor). But as others have pointed out here before, in response to my comments, it's been in shite for years, even decades. On one point though - I was under the impression that it had been strongly suggested that the whole Monica-cover-up, baby-food-factory-bombing thing was actually the fatal blow to Osama bin Laden's operations in Sudan, which forced the relocation to Afghanistan? As opposed to the big hawkish let-down we all thought it was on Clinton's part at the time. Anybody care to help me out/correct me?
• The problem in Sudan isn't eeeeevil George W Bush (he's got plenty of eeeeevil that can be laid against him without the stuff he's not responsible for), it's that it's a shitty situation. The only way peace is likely to happen is if: a) The Arabised Moslem Sudanese are convinced to stop murdering the Christian and Animist Sudanese, and the Christian and Animist Sudanese can be dissuaded from killing the Moslems. b) Genocide is completed. c) Invasion, subjugation, and the peace of brute force and domination. (b) isn't what I'd like to see. (a) is being tried and isn't working, because, shit, the dominant power is getting to massacre the enemies of its faith. Why stop now? And (c), well, (c) has a bunch of problems associated with it. Best case would be Germany or Korea. Worst case would be Somalia.
• This is good discussion and good links - thanks everyone.
• de Carabas, Colin Powell carries zero weight in the Bush administration. Ummm....yeah. And that was kind of the point of the entire article, especially the bit about the Sudan. It basically says Powell's been marginalized on Iraq, but that has freed him to do his own thing with the Sudan and other countries without interference from Rummy and co., because they've been distracted. I really recommend reading it.
• I have read the post and links. I like to point out a comment shawnj made.

  However, debate over whether or not the Government of Sudan has any direct involvment in it is not completely proven yet.

  One of the links on Blunted's post: Sudan: New Darfur Documents.

• Point taken, and I will note that all of the countries involved in the pressure on Khartoum have been operating under that assumption. Human Rights Watch has been credible in the past, and I don't doubt them here, although saying "We have this explosive proof of something, but we can't show you it" doesn't really give the best impression. So, given the case, what would you have the US do that it isn't already doing? Sanctions are already in place. UN action is being pressured, diplomatic missions have been sent, aid is being sent, and public knowledge of the event has been growing (as middleclasstool said, Sudan has been a cesspool for two decades now). Would you have us go to war before the UN has time to act? Yeah, that went over real well last time.
• Yeah, that went over real well last time. Why do you hate America so much! Did I ever say anything about sending troops? Look at the thread.
• Okay, so you suggest sanctions. They already exist. we're already pressuring the United Nations to take action and have tried diplomatic options with Sudan. What other options are there? Throw money at the problem? Arm the people that are starving and are the non-violent victims of this? I'm all ears.
• Can the ethnic cleansing in Sudan be stopped?
• Sudan: Day of Conscience, August 25, 2004
• U.N. begins Sudan security mission. Headline is a bit misleading. They're basically sending two teams to check out West Darfur and South Darfur. Don't expect much to come out of this.
• Powell says the G word. As the world collectively yawns and focuses on Iraq.
• So much hatred in this sad, sad world. I get the impression that there is quite a rift developing between Powell and Bushco. Powell is very good at his job and I wish he would switch parties. He would be great for the Democrats. He's another persuasive guy, and his words and his efforts might be far more effective with Kerry as Pres. I think with the skills he has, he is completely wasted in the Republican Party. I heard an interview with Rice yesterday and it seems that many within Bushco are being as vague as they can possibly be about what their intentions are after the elections. I'm guessing that with the extreme hatred that is shown for this president, no one really wants to be tied to him anymore. After actually reading this entire thread, I'm with Sullivan, LONG LIVE PRESIDENT CLINTON!!! He acknowledges that he fucked up in Sudan. He regrets some of his decisions and if he could do it again, you know damn well he would do it differently. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Having not read the GQ article on Powell, it looks like several people have made the same connection about his relationship with the Bush administration. What a waste. See what happens when someone with intelligence and clear vision gets involved with the wrong crowd. Mmmkay.
• Darshon, without any concrete evidence for it, I feel the same way. Powell never seems comfortable to me when appearing in a group with the rest of the chief administration. But as I say, I have no justification for that statement apart from the look on his face - and maybe he always looks like he's got bad indigestion.
• After the "G Word," Then What?
• China ties may shield Sudan
• Goddamn, this has way too many similarities to Rwanda. I never thought I would say this, but the mantra of "Never again!" rings so hollow for me now.
• Peace Talks Break Down Current death toll: 50,000.
• WHO says 6,000-10,000 dying each month in Darfur
• Dallaire: What should be done is an outright intervention. When I compare it to Rwanda, there are so many similarities it makes you sick.
• Darfur's Rebels
• Sudan Claims US Funds Rebels If by US, you mean Uganda, I think we may have something.
• Genocide in Darfur and Sudan nothing but hype and US propaganda.