Darfur/Iraq -v- Apathy/Passion

by Chekov Wed Sep 08, 2004 02:41

"A key question that I’m seeking an answer to, is why an impending war in Iraq can bring 100,000 people onto the streets of Dublin but a war in Sudan which has incurred an estimated 50,000 fatalities, evokes such a tepid response?"

Because, you are misunderstanding the purpose of protest, at least as far as I understand it. It is not an assertion of a moral stance on an issue, it is an attempt to _do_ something about an issue. During the Iraq war, there was something immediately obvious to a large number of people which we could actually conceivably have an effect on - the Shannon pit stop. I dare say that if the Sudanese airforce was refuelling in Shannon on it's way to bomb the people of Darfur, we'd see the whole country on the street.

You see, protests are about people coming together to demand things from the government, not about making a moral statement. In the case of Sudan, there is neither sufficent common understanding of the issue among the population, nor is there an obvious local focus for demands that might actually make the slightest bit of difference. We could demand that the Sudanese government stops the attacks - but the chances of them even hearing about a protest in Ireland, never mind giving a shit, are precisely zero. We could demand that Ireland raise the issue at the UN - but it's already been raised and this would make no difference. We could demand that the UN intervenes, but the permanent members of the security council wouldn't even notice our protest, never mind care. Until and unless there is a widespread understanding of some demands that a protest might raise that might make a difference, you simply aren't going to see people on the streets.

Incidentally, the chances of the UN intervening in any meaningful way are very close to zero and even if they were too, it would only be done if the major powers felt they could get something out of it - history is very clear on that score.

As far as I see it, the most useful thing that a person who wants to help the situation in Sudan could do is to research the background to the situation and disseminate this information as widely as possible. It is quite possible that a focus for demands could come out of this. For example, few enough people know that the UK and US have long been involved in the conflict through proxy armies and militias backed by their Ugandan and Ethiopian allies. The Sudanese government too must get its arms from somewhere and some political support - probably from the gulf states - but there is little information in common circulation.

Incidentally, the war has been going on for the best part of 30 years and your estimate of the deaths needs a few more 0's at the end.

by paulc Wed Sep 08, 2004 02:49

A british man has been brokeing arms deals to Sudan via Ireland to get around British arms trade laws...

There's a far greater direct effect on the entire world populations lives because of the US' war on terrorism then this conflict unfortunately

by R. Isible Wed Sep 08, 2004 06:49

That's something that could raise a response "boycott/obstruct company in Ireland that deals arms to Sudan" is much more likely to produce a response than something abstract.

by Michael Hennigan Wed Sep 08, 2004 08:03

The stopover facility at Shannon for the US military was a factor in the Irish protests against the Iraq War but in common with many other countries, there would still have been significant protests in the absence of the Shannon service.

Of course the Sudanese regime wouldn't give a damn about protests. However, governments elsewhere and mainstream media lose interest in an issue like Darfur, especially because of the low priority given to Africa, when there is a perception that people have no interest.

The number of casualties cited refer to Darfur and do not include the civil war in southern Sudan.

by paulc Wed Sep 08, 2004 15:28

that this company sinclair holdings has long history of such things its incorporated in Ireland has a director and a secretary in Ireland and that the phoenix has done the most research on this story...

yeah lets boycott ireland :) and of course it all comes back to the arms trade which is arming and fueling the paramitliateris there but then arms trade is a legit business apparently they only sell to the good guys?

any thoughts re the answer yourself michael :)

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Sep 08, 2004 16:03

NATHAN HOUSE,
CHRISTCHURCH SQUARE,
DUBLIN 8.

That's their address in the Company Registration Office records (see link below). Their old website - http://www.sinclair7.com - is defunct, but was registered by this guy:

Brian Footer
5 Briar Lane
Carshalton
Surrey
SM5 4PX
GB

Perhaps someone could walk by Nathan House to see if anybody is in, or whether that address is just used like a mailbox.

by Ruri Wed Sep 08, 2004 16:13

Will you be a bit more responsible about posting names and addresses. If you're not happy about something and wish to protest, at least inform the business in writing about your plans and maybe actually try and seek a response from them. Also a bit more research into this business and what it actually does is probably required.

The average post on this site has about as much logic and thought put into it as the Salem witch trials.

No wonder your movement is a mess when it's as random and misguided as this.

People are laughing.

by IMC Is contact in writing Wed Sep 08, 2004 17:19

This company probably has connections to the Irish political police, G2, who might pass on that we're discussing their wherabouts here.

by ZXBarcalow Wed Sep 08, 2004 17:34

The suggestion that the only reason people cared so much about what happened to Iraq was because the US was involved doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There are no mass protests about Colombia, and the US is heavily involved in atrocities there.

by Fergal Wed Sep 08, 2004 17:42

Your adressing the issue backwards. Just because the US is involved doesn't mean there will be protests (maybe because they're involved in too many places, and protesters wouldn't get a minute's rest). However, if the US isn't involved, people make less noise about it.

by ZXBarcalow Wed Sep 08, 2004 18:40

But I pointed to Colombia as an example of a war where the US *IS* involved, and which people *also* "make less noise about". Then there's the ethnic cleansing in Turkey, which the US was up to its eyeballs in -that didnt draw major protests.

So your claim that "if the US isn't involved, people make less noise about it" doesn't stand up, cos there are other, more important reasons for people not going out onto the streets in large numbers in protest about Sudan, etc - reasons that Chekov mentioned earlier in the thread.
But I pointed to Colombia as an example of a war where the US *IS* involved, and which people *also* "make less noise about". Then there's the ethnic cleansing in Turkey, which the US was up to its eyeballs in -that didnt draw major protests. So your claim that "if the US isn't involved, people make less noise about it" doesn't stand up, cos there are other, more important reasons for people not going out onto the streets in large numbers in protest about Sudan, etc - reasons that Chekov mentioned earlier in the thread.

by ZXBarcalow Wed Sep 08, 2004 18:41

Whoops, sorry I repeated myself there...

by Fergal Wed Sep 08, 2004 19:18

Chekov was speaking exclusively about protests and direct action. I'm talking about general public interest, media coverage and indeed discussion in forums like this. Also, I agree with the point made earlier by Michael, that many people who, for e.g. marched against the Iraq war, were doing just that - i.e. making a statement about the whole war, rather than merely trying to effect a change in Irish policy on Shannon. That's why it was called an "anti-war" movement. There would have been a big march regardless of the status of Shannon.

I don't aim this at anyone in this discussion (who after all wouldn't be posting here if they didn't have some degree of political awareness), but for too many people, criticisising American foreign policy is an easy way of seeming radical without having to think very hard. You'll always be right, 'cause America has an endless list of crimes to its "credit" ("debit"?) and you'll never have to do a damn thing in your own back yard. I've met people who read John Pilger and vote PD. Foreign affairs, especially for people in a relatively powerless country like Ireland, is the one area where people can enjoy that bracing feeling of moral purity, while never being in a position to act on their principles. The slimy Brendan O'Connor wrote a piece in the equally slimy Dubliner a while back criticising people who "talk left but vote right". His solution needless to say was to just be honest and be an Indo-reading conservative. I think that people should live up to their own rhetoric. But I do agree with his argument that the left has an inflated sense of it's own size, due to the large number of poseurs in its midst. And, (to finally bring this rant back to where it started) these are the people whose ears only ever prick up when they discover a conflict in which the US or Israel has a hand. And if its in a country with oil, better still.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 08, 2004 20:01

It is high time a multinational military force invaded Sudan, toppled the genocidal government, defeated its army and rounded up the janjaweed militia.
In the post-conflict Sudan democratic reforms should commence while the refugee population of Darfur will return and will be protected from attack by the multi-national force until such time as hostilities against them cease and political stability is returned to Sudan.
The deposed government of Sudan meanwhile would be tried convicted and jailed for war crimes.

Why will this NOT happen at the the present time?

It would be largely a U.S. military force with lesser military commitments from the international community and the Democrats already opposed to a war against the genocide of Saddam in 2003 would surely attempt to shoot down a vote for military action in the Congress and Senate.
Kerry would try to protray Bush as a warmonger.
The international Anti-War movement would start screeching "No War For Oil" because Sudan is an oil rich country.
Africans countries would oppose it because it would mean demands from their own populations for democratic reforms.
Arab countries would opposed it because it would reveal their cupport for the janjaweed militia, a radical Islamic force attempting to ethnically cleanse Darfur of black Africans.

Nothing is going to be done until after November only if Bush is elected of course.

Kerry will surely refuse to send troops to stop the janjaweed fearing defeat from a bunch of ragged prehistoric tribesmen riding on camels armed with AK-47's

by ZXBarcalow Wed Sep 08, 2004 21:35

Just supposing some "multinational military force" did invade Sudan and toppled the government as you propose. Do you think the people of Sudan would accept any government put in place by a foreign invader?

And how would you prevent this invasion resulting in more loss of life than has already been lost?

by Michael hennigan - Finfacts.com Thu Sep 09, 2004 00:18

Fergal wrote: 'You'll always be right, 'cause America has an endless list of crimes to its "credit" ("debit"?) and you'll never have to do a damn thing in your own back yard.'

It's easy for us Irish to present ourselves as morally pure as we have maintained the fiction of neutrality for decades while gaining the benefits of being on the Western periphary of Europe. Strange as it may seem, it is not too long ago when Irish politicians used to moan about the obligation of the rich countries of Europe ( primarily the then West Germany) to support poor countries like Ireland. Now that the boot is on the other foot, similar sentiments regarding the poor on the Eastern periphary are very scarce.

We could remain pure without a cost because we were on the sidelines of a nuclear standoff.

As to neutrality and morality, Sweden's actions during World War II show how amoral such a policy can be.

As to protests and engaging people, just a decade ago here in Europe, a 3 year war in the Balkans had resulted in thousands of deaths and several massacres of civilians. There were no street protests in response to the failure of leadership of European leaders such as Kohl, Mitterand and Major.

President Clinton had only agreed to support NATO action in 1995 following a massacre of civilians in a market in Sarajevo. Is it surprising then that Americans feel a sense of arrogance as the Europeans so demonstrably failed in our own backyard?

What is striking about the genocide in West Sudan is that a short time after the UN was held up as the great arbiter of international order, it has reverted to its traditional passive role.

The other lesson form Darfur that doesn't surprise me is the reaction of fellow muslims in the middle East. It is so much easier to make a stand when the enemy is non- Muslim such as Israel. The record of the treatement of the Kurds, the largest ethnic group in the world, without a state, by 4 muslim countries- Turkey, Syria, Iraq in the past and Iran, speaks for itself.

by Eoin Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:39

Michael writes that "the Europeans so demonstrably failed in our own backyard", and he's right. We -- people like you and me -- failed when Kohl got the EU to recognise Croatia's independence, thus setting the Milosevic effect in train. When NATO didn't like what the Serbian media was saying they bombed their broadcasting offices. When we heard our media's hymns to Western power and humanitarianism we didn't do enough to explode their myths and create alternative channels to get the word out. When the NATO planes, ships and submarines left for the Mediterranean, we didn't do enough to stop them. After the bombing, when the EU accession states were hounded and bribed to join NATO, we didn't do enough to realise an alternative non-NATO Europe.

by righteous pragmatist Thu Sep 09, 2004 13:39

I don't give a if the people of Sudan oppose the multinational force.
The slaughter of the people of Darfur must be stopped RIGHT NOW!
If Sudan continues to commit genocide in Darfur despite the condemnation of the internal community then it must be FORCED to STOP!
That means invading with military force, fighting and defeating the Sudanese Army and rounding up the Janjaweed and forcing Sudanese people who support the policies of genocide to abandon that support.
If that means killing more Sudanese soldiers and janjaweed and their sympathisers than the 50,000 innocents who have died already by their hands then I will not shed any tears.

Nazi Germany had to be forced against its will to accept a democratic government when it was defeated.
So too will genocidal Sudan.

by Badman Thu Sep 09, 2004 13:44

It looks like we may finally be rid of RP. If he is half as righteous as he thinks he is, then he will be the first to enlist for this invasion. In fact, if he isn't a lame little chickenhawk, he should be on the plane already. What are you waiting for RP? the world needs your righteous pragmatism.

On a more realistic note, how much would you like to bet that the UN/US won't intervene militarily to stop the famine? I'll give you odds of 10/1. Money where the mouth is.

by ZXBarcalow Thu Sep 09, 2004 14:27

you dont care whether they support the invasion force. Fine. So what do you think they will do if a foreign force invades? The same thing that most people would do -they would resist. And how many would die?

And so you dont care if huge numbers of soldiers die in the invasion, huh? You dont care if over 50,000, or maybe more than a hundred thousand people die just because they are wearing uniforms?

And what about Sudanese civilian casualties that would inevitably result from an invasion and occupation? What happens when they run into the thousands? Will you not care about them?

You talk as if you are concerned with human life in Darfur, RP, but your recklessness would probably do more harm than good, and your advocacy of toppling the Sudanese government would be laughable if it weren't such a scary thought. Violence should be a last resort. There are other ways to save lives in Darfur, and until these have been tried an invasion and "regime change" would be as stupid, reckless and cruel here as it was in Iraq.

by paulc Thu Sep 09, 2004 16:58

The US today accused the Sudanese government Arab militias of genocide against the black African population in the Darfur region.

by Righteous pragmatist Mon Sep 13, 2004 19:53

"You dont care if over 50,000, or maybe more than a hundred thousand people die just because they are wearing uniforms?"

When that 50,000 people in uniform have already killed 50,000 innocent people and could kill hundreds of thousands more then yes i don't care if they are may be killed in a campaign to save more innocents from dying.

In the Second World War millions of Germans were uniform and millions of them were killed in order that countless millions of innocent Jews, Poles, Slavs and Russians would no longer be exterminated.

Who the hell weeps for the SS or the Whermacht?

Who the hell should weep for the janjaweed or the Sudanese Army?

If the Sudanese population oppose the ending of the genocide in Darfur thay must be forced to obey the will of the International community.

There is no compromise with these cretins.
They stop killing innocent people or the they will face the consequences.

by righteous pragmatist Mon Sep 13, 2004 19:57

This is the last resort.

The Sudanese have been given a month to comply with a UN resolution ordering them to stop their genocide.

All peaceful means have been exhausted.

The ball is in their court now.

by ZXBarcalow Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:30

You evaded my question, so I'll repeat it:

"And what about Sudanese civilian casualties that would inevitably result from an invasion and occupation? What happens when they run into the thousands? Will you not care about them?"

by paulc Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:54

outside un hq ny

by righteous pragmatist Tue Sep 14, 2004 13:37

"And what about Sudanese civilian casualties that would inevitably result from an invasion and occupation? What happens when they run into the thousands? Will you not care about them?"

Of course I care about Sudanese civilian casualties should there be an invasion and occupation of Sudan.
However in order to halt the genocide in Darfur should Sudan continue its policies then military force will have to be use to topple the Sudanese government.
Military attacks will be directed against Sudanese military and government installations and personnel and Kartoum the capital of Sudan would have to be captured.
Unintentional Sudanese civilian casualties would be regretable but inevitable. If thousands are killed that will be the fault of the Sudanese government who can simply stop their genocide against the people of Darfur.

The people of Darfur are the victims.
In order to save their lives then war will have to fought against those who wish to take their lives.

This of course can come to a peaceful conclusion
- The Sudanese must cease their genocide in Darfur.
War is the last resort
But when no other means will achieve an end to genocide in Darfur then it must be used to save innocent lifes and further slaughter.

by ZXBarcalow Wed Sep 15, 2004 03:00

“Military attacks will be directed against Sudanese military and government installations and personnel and Kartoum the capital of Sudan would have to be captured.”

Attacks against military installations? Who are you kidding? There’s no such thing as a clean war. The US and Britain promised this in both Gulf wars and these claimed tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

“Unintentional Sudanese civilian casualties would be regretable but inevitable. If thousands are killed that will be the fault of the Sudanese government who can simply stop their genocide against the people of Darfur.”

It doesn’t really matter who’s fault it is, RP. If huge casualties are going to occur because of a policy decision you make, then that’s reason enough to question that decision -whether “the other guy started it” or not.

Something has to be done in Darfur, but an invasion in order to topple the government and then put another government in place is a recipe for disaster. What if a huge civil war broke out all over Sudan because of this? Would you be prepared to have all this carnage on your hands?

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 15, 2004 16:32

Just to clear things up I’ll answer all your points in turn and as honestly as I can.

1. “Attacks against military installations? Who are you kidding? There’s no such thing as a clean war. The US and Britain promised this in both Gulf wars and these claimed tens of thousands of civilian casualties.”

I’m not kidding. I never said there was such a thing. The US and British never promised anything.

2. “It doesn’t really matter who’s fault it is, RP. If huge casualties are going to occur because of a policy decision you make, then that’s reason enough to question that decision -whether “the other guy started it” or not.”

Yes it does. No it isn’t.

3. “Something has to be done in Darfur, but an invasion in order to topple the government and then put another government in place is a recipe for disaster. What if a huge civil war broke out all over Sudan because of this? Would you be prepared to have all this carnage on your hands?”

It’s obvious what has to be done.
The Sudanese government has already caused a disaster.
So what if it did?
If dead Sudanese soldiers mean a living Darfur population, then yes I’ll gladly have their blood on my hands.

by ZXBarcalow Wed Sep 15, 2004 17:51

RP - what you just wrote doesn’t make any sense. I asked you:

“What if a huge civil war broke out all over Sudan because of this? Would you be prepared to have all this carnage on your hands?”

And in reply you said:

“If dead Sudanese soldiers mean a living Darfur population, then yes I’ll gladly have their blood on my hands.”

Excuse me? You think a civil war kills only SOLDIERS? They are the most bloody kind of conflict imaginable. Civil wars always harm innocent people the most. Lebanon, anyone? Yugoslavia? Spain? Rwanda? I could go on…

Now we don’t know if a civil war would break out after an invasion and “regime change”, but it is very likely. You haven’t read much history if you are willing to risk one. Either that or you are amazingly reckless.


Oh and by the way, yes the US and British DID promise to attack just military installations in Gulf Wars 1 and 2, and both were total lies. So why should we listen to people -like yourself- who say that an attack on Sudan would focus on military targets?

by Fergal Wed Sep 15, 2004 18:12

Fair enough, you say that something has to be done in Darfur. But what? It's been going on for too long now for anyone to claim ignorance, so if nothing gets done, the west is as guilty as it would be if it precipitated a civil war through an ill-thought-out invasion.

Is the POSSIBILITY of adverse effects of intervention enough to override the CERTAINTY of ongoing genocide?

My own feeling is that a limited, peace keeping-style intervention should begin as soon as possible. While I wouldn't go so far as to advocate regime change, I'm disturbed by the moral certainty with which a western military intervention is being ruled out, seemingly for no other reason than that war is bad or intervention is bad, or Western intervention is bad.

It could well be that our decision might have to be between two imperfect options: international intervention or non-intervention. If, in such a circumstance, you denounce such a decision as "lesser evil-ism" and walk away from it, all you're doing is choosing the evil that arises from doing nothing.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 15, 2004 19:51

Finally someone who has a reasonable opinion.

I agree that a multi-national force should go into Sudan to keep the peace and prevent the genocide In Darfur and bring a swift and peaceful end to the crisis.

However the Sudanese government and janjaweed have consistently ignored the will of the International community and have promised that should such a force that you have described enter the area they wil fight it.

I hope it doesn't come to that but don't bet on it.

What if the crap hits the fan and the Sudanese fight against peacekeepers and continue to attack kill and expell the Darfur population?

Undoubtedly there would be moral obligation to defeat the Sudan government and its army.

ZXBarcalow there is ALREADY a civil war in Sudan and thousands of innocents have already died.

Fergal I salute you.

ZXBarcalow your a humanitarian and a pacificist and you have strong moral convictions and I respect that but values are worth nothing unless we fight for them.

The people in Darfur need our help and we should support help them in any way we can.

Someone wrote earlier that be cause I advocate military action I should be the first to go?

If your so convinced of non-violence then why don't you go and argue over human rights with the janjaweed and see how long you'll last before they chop your infidel head off!

by ZXBarcalow Thu Sep 16, 2004 02:39

“Is the POSSIBILITY of adverse effects of intervention enough to override the CERTAINTY of ongoing genocide?”

No. Of course not. But its not just the possibility of adverse effects -it’s the near certainty of unbelievably catastrophic effects. Whether western intervention is sometimes good or not, former colonial powers invading a third world (partially) arab muslim country and violently overthrowing the government, and then continuing to occupy the country and forcefully implanting some (as yet undetermined) alternative government would open all sorts of cans of worms that would have reverberations for years and years, not to mention the massive “direct” violence of the invasion and occupation themselves.

We’re only speculation here, but the human cost of such an attack -even if it was UN-sanctioned- would almost certainly be as bad as just doing nothing (which, by the way, Im definitely not advocating).

Just to take a quick example:
The invasion of Iraq and subsequent (and still ongoing) occupation has killed at least tens of thousands of people, will probably soon pass a hundred thousand. And that’s in just a year and a half. And this is in a country where support for the government was relatively small. The Sudanese government, in all likelihood is more popular and so its overthrow would lead to even bigger opposition and resistance. Just as Iraq is seeing the possible emergence of a civil war between pro and anti-occupation forces, the same would very likely happen in a post-invasion occupied Sudan.

This is not an argument against other sorts of intervention -peacekeeping, sanctions, whatever. SOMETHING must be done.

But that doesn’t mean that the solution is to go in, all guns blazing. That almost invariably makes things worse. Until it is (almost) certain that the situation can’t be improved by other means, then advocacy of an invasion, and the near certain bloodbath that would follow, is irresponsible.

“My own feeling is that a limited, peace keeping-style intervention should begin as soon as possible. While I wouldn't go so far as to advocate regime change, I'm disturbed by the moral certainty with which a western military intervention is being ruled out, seemingly for no other reason than that war is bad or intervention is bad, or Western intervention is bad.”

A limited, peacekeeping style of intervention is a million miles away from regime change. I would cautiously support the former, but only the latter as a last resort, after all other means have been shown to be futile.

As for the “moral certainty with which a western military intervention is being ruled out, seemingly for no other reason than that war is bad or intervention is bad, or Western intervention is bad”? Well your clearly not talking about me, and I cant comment on others’ opinions.

“It could well be that our decision might have to be between two imperfect options: international intervention or non-intervention. If, in such a circumstance, you denounce such a decision as "lesser evil-ism" and walk away from it, all you're doing is choosing the evil that arises from doing nothing.”

I refuse to believe that it is a choice between “2 lesser evils”. There is no easy third option -so don’t bother demanding one from me- which will just end all the violence. But one thing is certain: both of your “lesser evils” -doing nothing, and all out regime change- will result in near certain bloodbaths. We could argue hypothetically over which of these two courses of action would be the bloodier, but I would regard them both as a complete failure. As long as there is the reasonable possibility that the carnage can be greatly reduced by coercive diplomacy or peacekeeping or whatever, then choosing one of the 2 courses of action that pretty much GUARANTEE a gigantic massacre is just plain crazy.




Oh and by the way, RP: No, Im not a pacifist.

by Jane Mon Sep 20, 2004 13:04

Darfur is another test for the Afican Union to fail, as they failed in Rwanda (but of course they werent the only ones). The AU needs to show a unity of purpose, this is another defining test, it would have the dsame effect of a consitution if they suceed but is more likely to mean more common guilt - in common with the international community. Just as European Union unity of purpose would have helped to define the new European Union (not in the Rumsfeld way) the AU has an opportunity. You are defined by your actions and inactions - US takes its chance, sometimes seen as warmongers/ sometimes seen as saviours, sometimes as paralysed as the rest, UN is usually seen issueing strong statements of regret for not living up to its charter, EU generally a non-entity, AU - still not mature enough.
I say declare the opportunity from the highest level - lay down the gaunlet, this is an opportunity for the AU and UN to show their competence and maturity, but a genocide cannot and will not be tolerated.

by Jane Mon Sep 20, 2004 13:15

when I spoke about the EU missing an opportunity to help define itself I was refering to the Balkans wars in the 90s

by Jane Mon Sep 20, 2004 13:33

I missed one world power - the second superpower that raised its heads in the run up to the Iraq war - the potential for large sections of the western public to stand up for their opinions.
Are we going to show ourselves to be as fickle and self serving as the other world powers in voicing our opinion? - protests on half the scale of the anti-war demos would insure action to resolve the Darfur crisis.