The conflict of Sudan: Uprooting the black Africans

[Honeykiss1974]

Time to pay attention to Darfur

Posted on Wed, Oct. 05, 2005

Many of us donated time, talents and money to help Hurricane Katrina victims. That tragedy definitely hit close to home, although it was hundreds of miles away.

But should distance ever matter? Should we base how much we care, how willing we are to help, on miles?

With Katrina, we showed how our caring can stretch many miles. Why, then, haven't we reacted in the same way to a far more horrific tragedy an ocean away in North Africa?

An interfaith service on behalf of the people of Darfur will offer an opportunity to confront that question.

Priests, pastors and rabbis across the country will fast and pray for the Darfur region of Sudan. Ahavath Achim Hebrew Congregation and InterFaith Ministries are sponsoring the service here.


Read the rest here

[Rudey]

This is from a Muslim commentator that is very interesting. He runs a Muslim-American group (http://www.aifdemocracy.org/)



http://www.azcentral.com/specials/pl...asser-ON.html#

M. Zuhdi Jasser
Phoenix Physician, Chairman American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Sept. 16, 2004 09:35 AM

When will the Sudan genocide end?

When will the killing, the genocide in Sudan stop? Yes, this week finally we have declared the crisis in Darfur to be a - genocide. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Secretary of State Colin Powell.

What's in a word - "genocide"? A great deal when it comes to quickly martialing the world's resources and energies in order to put a stop to a preventable catastrophy being committed by barbarians in the Sudan including the Arab Janjaweed marauders and what finally appears to more clearly be the Sudanese military themselves. In recent analyses and surveys of refugees who were displaced from Darfur, verifiable reports have identified that over three-fourths of the violence is being perpetrated in the hands of the Sudanese military themselves. Powell confirmed this in Senate testimony last week.

Knowing this now, it is not surprising in retrospect that the Arab League has been dragging its collective feet at declaring a "genocide" and owning up to their humanitarian responsibility for the tragedy occurring at the hands of one of their colleague nations. We acted too late in Rwanda ten years ago and with more than one million displaced from their homes and upwards of 100,000 dead we are certainly far from early in Sudan. The EU has begun to come around regarding the insistance upon corrective action by the Sudanese government, but we can no longer stand idly by.

Organizations like the Save Darfur coalition ( http://www.savedarfur.org ) signed on by more than 100 international organizations including our own American Islamic Forum for Democracy ( http://www.aifdemocracy.org ) have been working to wake up the world to the genocide occurring on the watch of all world leaders under the blinders and complicity of the Sudanese government. We finally have reliable testimony. In Senate testimony and soon in U.N. action we will formally hear the world decry the genocide. When will the world finally listen?

Listen to all those giving testimony and organizations trying to promote human rights without access in Darfur. Listen to the suffering of the displaced million of Darfur and the suffering of the families of those killed in the genocide. Unfortunately, we can no longer hear the voices of the viciously murdered in the genocide of Darfur or the ones from prior crises in Sudan. We must act now and the world must finally begin to effectively listen to the world's humanitarian organizations like SaveDarfur.org, Human Rights Watch and so many others who have been decrying the continued suffering of the Sudanese in Darfur. Perhaps sometime soon the world will act

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3641820.stm

-Rudey

[Rudey]

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051226&s=reeves122905

SUDAN AND ITS GUESTS.
Host of Problems
by Eric Reeves
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 12.29.05

Why does genocide in Darfur continue? One reason is that there is no real international pressure on the architects of the genocide--the National Islamic Front security cabal in Khartoum--to bring the killing to a halt. On the contrary, as the genocide enters its fourth year, the international community continues to defer to Khartoum, or even to suggest disingenuously that the regime has somehow reformed itself. Either way, the clear implication is that the lives of Darfur's civilians are not worth the diplomatic price of confronting Sudan's brutal leaders.

There is no more appalling illustration of this phenomenon than recent announcements by the African Union and the Arab League that both groups will hold their upcoming summits in Khartoum. These summits will represent symbolic triumphs for Sudan's genocidaires. And they will reinforce in very public fashion what Khartoum already knows: that none of its neighbors really cares what it does in Darfur.

Of the two, the African Union summit is certainly the more disturbing, if only because it is the organization's own troops that are, in theory, supposed to be establishing security in Darfur. To be sure, this mission has been woefully ineffective from the start. The A.U. force has been deliberately undercut by Khartoum since it was first deployed in summer 2004, with Sudan denying fuel to the African Union for its essential helicopters, blocking A.U. deployments within Darfur, and refusing to allow critical equipment and personnel into the region. For its part, the African Union hasn't committed enough resources or manpower; and key African countries have either reneged on military commitments (South Africa) or deliberately obscured Darfur's terrible realities and Khartoum's responsibility (Nigeria).

But the African Union's decision to hold its January 2006 summit in Sudan provides the strongest evidence yet that the organization has no intention of actually standing up to Khartoum and halting the genocide. Because tradition dictates that the next chair of the African Union be the head of the most recent summit's host country, Sudanese president Omar el-Bashir is now poised to lead the very organization that claims to be seeking an end to the genocide he is orchestrating. (This calls to mind the decision once made by the African Union's much-derided predecessor, the Organization of African Unity, to give its leadership position to the monstrous Idi Amin of Uganda.) It is difficult to imagine a more appalling demonstration of moral corruption on the part of the African Union--or a clearer indication that the group's claims to be working to end the Darfur genocide (in the popular phrase, to be providing "African solutions to African problems") are deeply disingenuous.

To date, only one African leader, President Deby of Chad, has objected to holding the A.U. summit in Khartoum. (And his objection was self-interested, not principled: He recently declared that a "state of belligerency" exists between Sudan and his country because of Khartoum's support for Chadian military mutineers trying to topple his weak government.) And so, in less than a month, Khartoum can expect to enjoy a diplomatic triumph amidst only scattered criticism.

The Arab League summit, slated to be held in Khartoum in March, may seem a minor victory for Sudan by comparison. But the summit's location is meaningful nonetheless: It reassures the National Islamic Front that, whatever its actions in Darfur, it will continue to receive friendship and diplomatic support from its traditional Arab allies.

It is no accident, after all, that Arab League member Algeria, which currently holds a seat on the U.N. Security Council, has been instrumental in sabotaging efforts to impose sanctions on Khartoum's genocidaires. Although the Security Council voted to create a sanctions committee to inflict penalties on Khartoum in March 2005, no sanctions have been imposed since, in large part because Algeria, along with Russia and China, has blocked all efforts to craft effective sanctions. Then there is Egypt, the powerhouse of the Arab League, which continues to urge the United Nations to stop meddling in Sudanese affairs. The Mubarak government (which at one point nearly scuttled north-south peace negotiations in Sudan) has relentlessly opposed any internationalization of either the diplomatic or military response to the Darfur genocide.

There are only two ways the vast human catastrophe in Darfur will end: international humanitarian intervention or intense diplomatic pressure on Sudan's regime. The former is nowhere on the horizon, and the latter will be profoundly undercut by the upcoming African Union and Arab League summits. We are often told that a new generation of leaders has arisen in African and Arab countries, a generation with reformist instincts. But by choosing to hold these summits in Khartoum, African and Arab leaders are showing that, like their predecessors, they are still more inclined to protect one another than act on principle. Idi Amin would be pleased.

-Rudey

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Very true, I should say the blacks vs. the Arabs.

"Black" is more of a North AmeriKKKan racial construct than anything else.

Find another descriptive.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
Another reason why social constructions of race/ethnicity are ridiculous. I've also heard that but I know a LOT of Arabs who would not fit into our understanding of "white". And I don't consider Arab a "racial/ethnic" catergory. I use it to refer to people who are from countries where that is the dominate language/culture.

Arabian can be considered an ethnic, cultural, and regional grouping. The distinctions they make within that grouping can be based on religion, skin color, and so forth. To use racial subcategories is really unnecessary. But, if people insist on using "black" and "white" categories, a large percentage of people in Arabic countries would fit into AmeriKKKa's "white" category.

[southernelle25]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Arabian can be considered an ethnic, cultural, and regional grouping. The distinctions they make within that grouping can be based on religion, skin color, and so forth. To use racial subcategories is really unnecessary. But, if people insist on using "black" and "white" categories, a large percentage of people in Arabic countries would fit into AmeriKKKa's "white" category.

Perhaps, but definately not the case in Darfur/N. Sudan. Unlike in S. Sudan, these people are in every way racially the same; the vast overwhelming majority of so-called "Arabs" are indistinguishable from their neighbors. The only Arabs in Sudan are the Bedouins, and even they're more Sudanese than not.

In fact, I actually believe it does more damage to the situation when reporters, commentators, and politicians enable the "Arabs" by identifying them as such, as if they are a different race, while knowing full well that they are not. Rather, the "Arabs" should be called what they are and asked why they are killing their Sudanese brothers and why they are attacking their fellow Africans over this territory that they have shared for all their history.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
"Black" is more of a North AmeriKKKan racial construct than anything else.

Find another descriptive.

<hijack>
What's with the "AmeriKKKa" your using now? I could understand once or twice to make a particular point... but now it's become a little disconcerting...
<end hijack>

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey

To date, only one African leader, President Deby of Chad, has objected to holding the A.U. summit in Khartoum. (And his objection was self-interested, not principled: He recently declared that a "state of belligerency" exists between Sudan and his country because of Khartoum's support for Chadian military mutineers trying to topple his weak government.) And so, in less than a month, Khartoum can expect to enjoy a diplomatic triumph amidst only scattered criticism.

Actually I believe an actual state of war now exists between Chad and Sudan...

Yep - Chad declared war on the Sudan on Dec. 23rd:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4556576.stm

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by RACooper
<hijack>
What's with the "AmeriKKKa" your using now? I could understand once or twice to make a particular point... but now it's become a little disconcerting...
<end hijack>

I have been using AmeriKKKa on this board since 2001 during race discussions. You'll be okay.

[Optimist Prime]

we're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar

I've used AmeriKKKa myself a few times. There are more racist in the U.S. than any other post/industiral nation. And i don't mean jokes behind each others back racism I mean the "lets go find homeless people, especially black ones, because they drain socieity and drag them from our car or shoot at them" thype racism.

That is why is many Amer-I-Cans use the KKK spelling in racial discourses.

[DSTCHAOS]