Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Ten Reasons to Suspect "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam

By Bruce Dixon, Black Agenda Report. Posted November 29, 2007.


As the "Save Darfur" lobby grows in power, here are ten reasons to be more critical about the supposedly humanitarian mission.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Bruce Dixon

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.

Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust U.S.-backed or U.S.-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the "Save Darfur" lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness. In the spirit of furthering that examination we here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify U.S. intervention in Africa.

1. It wouldn't be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war.

Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the U.S. government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9/11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's still better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".

2. It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.

The 1995 U.S. and NATO military intervention in Kosovo was supposedly a "peacekeeping" operation to stop a genocide. The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet. The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders. At just under a thousand acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the U.S. military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and relevant sea lanes. It is also widely believed to be the site of one of the U.S.'s secret prison and torture facilities.

3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?

"The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd," according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. "What's happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it's not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources."

More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term "genocide" to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many Africans have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the "Save Darfur" movement. In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: oil, africa, darfur, sudan, congo

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Factual Error
Posted by: JMTulip on Nov 29, 2007 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US led NATO intervention in Kosovo was not in 1995 but rather in 1999. In 1995 the war in Bosnia had not yet even concluded. Kosovo was still very much on the periphery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Factual Error, however.... Posted by: talkville
» RE: Factual Error, however.... Posted by: talkville
"Dear Prudence"
Posted by: talkville on Nov 29, 2007 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a genuinely urgent issue, especially in our current times. "Humanitarian intervention" is often used as a mere mask to achieve more dubious and less human ends. A great piece to supplement this author's excellent article appears in the October 2007 issue of Monthly Review. It is urgent that the mere mention of the word 'humanitarian' not mis-lead or re-channel energies best directed elsewhere. Prudence is in order -- the Right, especially the hard Right, knows how to manipulate and twist words and phrases which are appealing on the surface - they love abstractions and generalities especially. Best to be on guard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strangest article in a long time
Posted by: toblo on Nov 29, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
*sigh* Just because something Could be the case doesn't mean it is. Shoddy, shoddy thinking - especially in pts 1 & 2

The author seems to place a lot of emphasis on the view that the situation in Sudan shouldn't be called genocide since the situation in Congo is much worse

IT'S NOT A COMPETITION

You think the situation in Congo receives too little attention? Write an article about that, then.

PS - It simply wrong to have 3 points named "It's all about the..", since it can't ALL be about each of three different things - that would take at least three Alls

PS2 - Please everybody - stop making "top 10 lists" just because you know how to count to ten

Yes, I'm crabby - people trying to bamboozle me with empty rethorics and absurd reasoning does that to me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right on, Talkville! Posted by: Cathyc
» Yeah, right... Posted by: mjabele
» Justice and the Scales Posted by: talkville
Once again, its about oil
Posted by: xi_people on Nov 29, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The explosive backstory to the fake "Save Darfur" campaign is that once again the US is attempting to gain control over energy resources through military intervention. So, rather than "spreading democracy" this time the excuse will be "saving" poor Africans in Sudan, people that the ruling elite couldn't care less about.

The reason that the backstory is explosive is because of the country that is already heavily invested in developing energy resources in Africa -- China. Several news items published yesterday indicate that serious gas shortages are occurring in some of China's outlying provinces, which will only get much worse given their rapidly expanding economy.

So, in short, the US and China are going to come into direct conflict over oil in Africa just at a time when the latter is desperate to import more of the precious resource.

Things are going to get very interesting, very soon...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once again, its about oil Posted by: flymulla
Then what?
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 29, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, I'm not giving another dime to Save Darfur, but it still grieves me to know that men are slain and women and children are raped just looking for firewood there. I have friends who spent years in Congo working for an NGO and despair that the massacres will never end. Are you saying that corporatism must be overthrown for Africa to have any peace? Sounds like a death sentence for millions of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Then what? Posted by: kaosnnc
I don't know but I'll bet Mr. Dixon's BIGGEST objection is #7
Posted by: yellow on Nov 29, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a slight inaccuracy in the text. The AWJS was joined by the liberal National Council of Churches in mid 2004 to condemn the genocide in Darfur and call for humanitarian aid to victims and international action. The obvious objective of Mr.Dixon is to cast aspertions on the international efforts to save Darfur by making the whole thing sound like a Zionist smokescreen for anti-Muslim intervention despite the fact that the coalition has overwhelming multi-cultural support all across the political spectrum and that nearly half a million dead and over 2 million refugees is certainly a legitimate crisis by all accounts. Yes, the congo is a more severe situation but the Darfur situation is close enough in order of Magnatude to Rwanda which did get global attention and response, although far too late.

The AWJC is headed currently by Ruth Messenger a very liberal former New York City Council member whose politics could be labelled "left-social democrat" by her regular endorsement such publications as In These Times and her consistent support of progressive causes. Ms. Messenger is hardly what one would consider a neoconservative war monger. In the early days of US intervention in Iraq, Darfur was posed as an example of a real Human Rights crisis meriting US attention to a far greater degree than Saddam's Iraq as a way of pointing out the hypocracy and dishonesty about the real US casus belli. The creation, a year after the US invasion of Iraq, of the Darfur Coalition by Jewish groups is viewed by some folks as an automatic cause for suspicion. I find this quite sad considering the extent of suffering in that part of Africa.

The Sudanese Government is absolutely brutal. There is a long history of Sudanese persecution of Black African Sudanese by the agents of the Government in Khartoum. Lives continue to be lostin Darfur. The humanitarian crisis grows ever more heartbreaking. This should be the real focus. I can understand treating calls for military intervention with caution though not suspicion. Sudan has too little resources to spur military aggression soley on that basis.


For many decades the Jewish Community in the US has been ridiculed for "selfishly" focusing on their own history and its connection to genocide to the exclusion of all other genocides. Though a dubious claim to start with, I find it appalling and not just a bit bizarre, that the first major effort on behalf of the victims of a major genocide in Africa by American Jews should meet with suspicion and criticism by African-American sources. As Jews we're always damned it we do and damned if we don't. I know I'll get hell for saying so but the African-American Community needs to get over its "Jewish Thing."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leftist Hate Speech couched in liberal paranoia
Posted by: jdfrost on Nov 29, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is an example of the WORST of the writing posted at AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Black Sec. of State is closet Jewish Conspirator!
Posted by: jdfrost on Nov 29, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, right. And no doubt she's an ardent leftist, too, like most Jews (except for those hidden ones who, we're told by secondhand sources, actually control the world).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not sure what you mean. Posted by: yellow
There is Genocide in Darfur
Posted by: PoetWarrior on Nov 29, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a friend and poetic colleague who has witnessed the genocide in Darfur with his own eyes. I have heard his first-person reporting of what he has seen, and he is lucky to have gotten out alive. Your theory--that somehow this very real genocide is actually a "viral" campaign cobbled out of thin air--is not based in reality.

Just because there are some seeking military intervention in this case, it does not make it a bogus situation. Militarism is just a bogus solution, and we really need to get behind the UN Peacekeepers rather than send in our own already stretched-thin troops. The violation of human rights in Darfur is real regardless of how wrong a proposed remedy is in our eyes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agree fully..... Posted by: mjabele
Thought provoking
Posted by: rwmk12 on Nov 29, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Self interest, greed, and real politik... welcome to reality. Interesting article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"It's all about Sudanese oil"?
Posted by: defrag on Nov 29, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the first time I've ever heard that "Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil." Is this even true?

Usually on the left we hear things like "Too bad Sudan doesn't have any oil," and complaints that of course oil was the real reason for the Iraq invasion.

Okay, Congo has gold and the other resources mentioned - so why does uncontrolled genocide there supposedly help extract those things? And by the same 'logic,' wouldn't uncontrolled genocide in Sudan help get the oil (if any) out too?

But I gather the author is not advocating US intervention in Congo either, so why bring Congo up at all? Or IS he advocating US intervention in Congo? Confusing.

Hard to follow this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OH Baloney
Posted by: Libsrule on Nov 29, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry but the actual evidence is too striking to call BS on. The Gulf of Tonkin was well before verification could be done. In Darfur the verification has been ongoing.

SO just what the hell do you call what is happening in Darfur? A schoolyard fight?

Get a grip.

AND besides THOSE people would welcome us instead of the Iraqi's who had it much better under Saddam than they do now.

Darfur is not manufactured at all, but you sure sound like some racist who is being paid to say these things in the hopes of allowing China unfettered access to Sudan.

The Chinese would LOVE to see the population there cut down to as few people as possible so they could colonize the place. There are currently tens of thousands of Chinese being brought in as labor and support for the oil industry there that China so desperately covets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OH Baloney Posted by: ALANHESTER
"Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported" Hist.NewsNet
Posted by: jayjanson on Nov 29, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once worked on a documentary for the African Development Bank and although never was in Darfur, I was close enough to the Sudan border in Ethiopian and Kenya and have a spot in my heart for the magnificent people of this region. I just knocked out this article when I remembered U.S. backing the rebels. I wonder and ask someone more conversant on the Sudan than I, whether or not the U.S. is still actively supporting the rebellion(s) secretly either materially or diplomatically. Published article:

While there is great sorrow and indignation over the suffering and loss of life in the Sudan, early U.S. involvement in the war goes unmentioned. Instead, the U.S. leads an effort to condemn China for buying Sudan's oil. For years the U.S. had paid for war in hopes to arrange for some eventual control of the oil discovered in Darfur, (all well once well reported in the New York Times). The human crises receives modest financial aid from a U.S. government, silently protected from any embarrassment of acknowledging a prime complicity in fomenting war in Darfur.

"Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported" HistoryNewNetwork, George Mason University

republished by CounterCurrents, Global Research, Operation Sudan of SaveDafur, UK IndyMedia, Ethiopian News, Islamic Forum, NewsTrust,News, Newsvine, Digg, Netscape, Boreal Access, Newswire, Tailrank, Congo Music News, Zaire, mideastyouth.com

In 1978 oil was discovered in Southern Sudan. Rebellious war began five years later and was led by John Garang, who had taken military training at infamous Fort Benning, Georgia. "The US government decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment through the 'front-line' states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime." [Federation of American Scientists fas.org] … [truncated]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about some evidence?
Posted by: Rebecca240 on Nov 29, 2007 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has to be one of the weakest articles I have ever seen on AlterNet. I am totally open to hearing a well-thought out case for not supporting Save Darfur, but all the author offers are unsubstantiated claims. Just because the US government has committed nefarious acts in the past, which I agree should always make us skeptical, does not mean that a separate nongovernmental organization is automatically a fraud. The claim that Save Darfur uses its funds for advocacy is irrelevant- some organizations are charitable organizations that provide services, some are advocacy organizations that work to change policy. If their goal is to advocate for change, that is certainly what their funds should be spent on.

If anyone can find evidence to back up any of these claims, I'm happy to hear it. I am disappointed that AlterNet would even publish such a weak, baseless article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amnesty from boneheadedness!
Posted by: irenicus on Nov 29, 2007 3:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I to believe this conspiracy stretches as far as Amnesty International who have been key in raising awareness of what is happening in Dafur?

Get real!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amnesty from boneheadedness! Posted by: ALANHESTER
geography & history support darfur as scam!
Posted by: jambro on Nov 29, 2007 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a professor of geopolitics with african expertise, i support the scam thesis- geographically, both the Darfur plateau & mixed ethnic groups sprawl into Chad - all sudanese are "black africans" as many "arabs" are also "black" if one applies american racial identities to them , most of darfur's population speak arabic & nearly all are muslim - main internal conflicts are over scarce water (global warming) as overpopulation forces pastoral nomads into deeper competition with subsistence cultivators, who cannot survive ecologically - british imperialism left sudan a mess, with nine borders & the only connecting link being the nile ... next door, uganda genocide from "lord's army" conflict is still greater than in sudan, chad conflicts over control of government pits 2 cousins against each other, the french switching sides to support whomever is most amenable to supplying france's uranium needs ... i could go on & on to detail the regional situation, which makes darfur seem normal - so why the media hype - this article makes plain the geopolitical reasons for the american ruling elite to intervene - fear of chinese control over natural resources that shrink every year as well as all the other reasons on the list & more

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

look at a map! geographic ignorance breeds misunderstanding!
Posted by: jambro on Nov 29, 2007 5:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
re: congo, all colonial era borders are tragedies, past, present & future - ethnicity & ecology are the realities along with productive human habitat being as scarce as minerals are plentiful, but cannot feed people, who are breeding themselves out of survival - malthus was right on an ecosystem by ecosystem basis, carrying capacity stretched beyond sustainability ... irreversible ecological change & desertification sweeps through africa more deadly than aids or tetse flies ...

human existence is at stake globally as wealthy rapacious euro-american corporations strive to extract the very last drop of african resources without giving anything back other than more misery & disruption - divide & despoil

read a topographical map of the region with data for rainfall, soil erosion, etc. + a good history of east & central africa from precolonial through neocolonial (1600-2000) before making any comments - ignorance breeds more ignorance - as without geo-historical knowledge, africa is still a darkness in your minds

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

geology! carbons, diamonds & oil ...
Posted by: jambro on Nov 29, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sudan south sits on top of a patch of oil, not a lake, but it will soon be empty, less than 10 years left at present sloppy extraction rates .. the chinese actually bring efficiency to those operations - as they did for the california gold mines, after the white miners took the easy stuff & gave up the chinese extracted much more through clever socio-technical organization & hard work ... when it comes to on the ground expertise the chinese have always beat the americans on practicality, appropriate tech, & understanding of basic needs, tools & such, able to relate to africans on the basis of also being a developing country with widespread poverty & subsistence agriculture, methane fuel from compost toilets, etc .. vs. lazy, spoiled hi-tech addicted americans ..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

once upon a time, israel & africa ...
Posted by: jambro on Nov 29, 2007 5:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
israel & africa were close, israeli technical assistance in arid lands, appropriate technologies & agricultural expertise were respected & appreciated, but that was long ago when kibbutz were really socialist & basic small scale down-to-earth innovative thinking were the hallmark of israeli excellence .. that was a long time ago, i think israel has been spoiled by american jews migrating there with all their bad habits ... all the frontier spirit & socio-technical wizardry that once signaled israel's successful small scale agro-industrial commnunities, which provided support for 3rd world micro development are long gone, urban sprawl, suburban consumer mentalities, illegal settlements with swimming pools for russian & american immigrants, all together have replaced self-reliance & hard work - a new cheaper workforce to replace cheap palestinian labour comes from the same filipino labour contractors that supply the saudis ... while russian jewish mafia launder their ill gotten gains in speculative investments ... all the good values that rationalized support israel & israeli innovation & industriousness are down the drain, as is the national ethic to help develop african communities ... success & greedy immigrants have despoiled the compassion of secular ashkenazi social idealists who founded & developed israel & who could empathize with africa - after all the early zionist movement was prepared to accept the uk offer of a homeland in uganda

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

final response to comments ....
Posted by: jambro on Nov 29, 2007 5:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
european media & eu agencies are also beginning to be more skeptical & critical of humanitarian rhetoric, although neocolonial opportunism of france and the uk are brutal, especially where white s.african mercenaries have long spearheaded private resource wars in anglophone africa (blackwater would have to get in line except for their juice in the bush regime) ... french involvement in the tutsi genocide is in the open, foreign legion deployed to protect french political & economic interests, have carte blanc to rape, pillage & kill - the african debt as much a fraud as american subprime lending, now exposed as scams to rob the poor .. try to read beyond ignorant biased media - uk's "new african" french jaune afrique, being the most generally reliable monthly news & analysis magazines .. cut off from african media & african diaspora / exile media, you will have a big shock to read what africans are saying about their conditions (good & bad) & distortions of "white" mass media, corporate & government propaganda

like my comment on maps & history - start to read current events from an african perspective rather than from the neocolonial bias ...

in the 1960's we started nacla at stanford to expose covert subversion of latin american autonomy, then harvard started merip to do the same for middle east affairs - influenced by "the power elite" c wright mills' call to arms for americans to reclaim america, nearly a half century later we have slipped so far into a morass of global debt, corruption & resource wars, that re-empowerment may no longer be possible even if more americans woke up & began to act to take back government, by the people, to the people & for the people

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

major flaw
Posted by: heydemo on Nov 30, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your argument has one major flaw: The United States has not invaded Sudan. (Nor will the US invade unilaterally while Bush is in office, I guarantee) So the idea that "Save Darfur" has been engineered by the government doesn't make a lot of sense. Why run a 4 year PR campaign to justify invasion and then not actually invade?

If Bush wanted to invade Sudan he would not need to go through the trouble of setting up a coalition of 180 different organizations under the Save Darfur Coalition (as if the administration could set all this up without word getting out, things leak constantly) He would just make a few speeches like he did before Iraq and then start bombing.

The reason that it is Darfur and not the Congo that everyone's talking about is that a man named Brian Steidle went to Darfur and took pictures of the genocide, then gave them to Nicholas Kristof who published them in the New York Times. Steidle and others went on to set up the Save Darfur Coalition. In the same way that some policital parties and canidates are more successful than others, some NGOs are more successful because they adopt better strategies, or just get lucky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Issues with the article.
Posted by: John Bevan on Nov 30, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some points to make about the content of this article:

1, Its been said before but it should be mentioned again that the Kosovo war was in 1999. A cursory glance at related subject matter discussed in this article would reveal this.

2, Neither the US nor NATO are considering or will ever consider intervening in Darfur. I find the assertion that the 'Save Darfur' coalition is trying to pave the way for an intervention to be naiive in the extreme. More than enough public support already exists to allow an operation to commence and yet the US and NATO are actively trying to avoid committing troops.

3, If NATO or the US intervened they would not take over Sudan; Darfur is not Sudan. Nobody has, or will suggest regime change in Darfur and the vast majority of oil reserves which apparently represent the basis of this all too familiar conspiracy theory are not located in Darfur. And would the US risk war with China over these reserves?

I find it encouraging that the plight of Darfur has been raised to such a level that governments have had to take notice. Admittedly humanitarian intervention can be used to justify all manner of sins but this should not detract from its potential value to the international community. It represents an essential tool in modern global politics. Each case should be examined closely under vigorous scrutiny and when, as in Darfur, a valid case arises then it should be pursued.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Issues with the article. Posted by: dockboy
I Agree
Posted by: dockboy on Nov 30, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Western powers need to ignore third world countries. Let them deplete their own excess population. The world is too crowded, as it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Just In From The Sudan...UK Teacher could be executed. Students named their Teddy Bear Mohammed
Posted by: yellow on Nov 30, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The six year old students of a primary school UK teacher who named a teddy bear Mohammed may face execution sources say.

Gillian Gibbons, a Uk teacher, was tried under a Sudanese constitutional law that strictly prohibits "insulting religion." A prominent Muslim cleric leading the protests against her declared, "Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion" Many of the protesters advocate a death sentence for Ms. Gibbons. Her sentence may be limited to 40 lashes and imprisonment for six months and a fine.

This is the mentality of the Khartoum Regime which declared in 1983 that all Sudanese must by law profess the Islamic faith. Not too enlightened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is you point exactly? Posted by: DesertStone
» RE: Same old tricks Posted by: DesertStone
» Same old Desertstone tricks Posted by: yellow
ANYBODY WHO PAYS ATTENTION TO AMERICA'S ACTIONS IN THE WORLD WILL KNOW......
Posted by: ALANHESTER on Nov 30, 2007 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US has NEVER stopped a genocide. Even when they were aware it was going on.

Darfour was mentioned,
The Congo was mentioned.
No one mentioned Somalia, which, right now is suffering because of the US and it's proxy, Ethiopia.

The ENTIRE WEST COAST OF AFRICA has rejected military and humantarian aid from the US, partly because of our chavisinistic attitude about hunting for terrorists in their country, and partly because they see what the US did to Somalia, and like every country in the Middle East, don't want the US to come and destroy their region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Presidential Power(lessness)
Posted by: Wake Up Now 1799 on Dec 1, 2007 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are all descendants of immigrants.

The process for entering the USA was much more rational before the advent of empire in the McKinley / TR administrations.

More to the point, the president has no control over immigration policy, other than to sign or veto any legislation the cowards in congress may sent his way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many times are people going to make this mistake?
Posted by: TaoAvatar20 on Dec 2, 2007 3:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would just like the author of this article or anyone else on that bandwagon to point out to me a single press release, comment to the press, paper, or any other piece of written material promoting an operation mounted by the US armed forces in Darfur made by the Save Darfur Coalition, Genocide Intervention Network, ENOUGH Project, any other major aide or activist organization working in Darfur, or a single high-level employee of the US State Department.

When any of you can actually show me such a thing I'll bother getting concerned. Until then I will continue to devote as much time as I can to saving the lives of people who have wound up in a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions by virtue of being born in the wrong place rather than amusing myself with smug conspiracy theories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Top 10 Reasons Why Conspiracy Theories won’t help Darfuris
Posted by: Printo on Dec 2, 2007 8:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
10. By the most conservative estimate, 200,000 Darfuris have needlessly lost their lives to violence.
9. While some were writing about Darfur “PR Scams” the violence has escalated and the peacekeeping force is coming closer to failure
8. The entire world lamented the lack of meaningful response following Rwanda, yet now “agents” of the Sudanese government have been working to poison the well and discredit the U.S. government who actually seems to be doing the right thing.
7. There does not appear to be a link between the Save Darfur Coalition and the Center for Security Policy – as has been alleged.
6. The Congressional Black Caucus was fighting for Darfur, and against the genocide, before there was a Darfur movement. Maxine Waters, Donald Payne and Barbara Lee all wrote strong bills to try to end the genocide. Are they crooks, too?
5. There are certain factions in the U.S. that seem to derive some benefit (perhaps, financial?) from defending the Sudanese regime and trying to discount the violence and death in Darfur.
4. Inherent in a good measure of criticism of Darfur-related efforts is a latent anti-Semitic sentiment that seeps out every so slightly.
3. Darfuri women continue to be raped.
2. The situation continues to be unstable and insecurity with banditry and lawlessness hampering humanitarian work.
1. While some are penning tinfoil blog conspiracy theories, for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with Darfur or Sudan, lives are continuing to be shattered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.