I tråden om kirker i Pakistan kom situasjonen i Darfur opp. Hva den har med kristne å gjøre er ikke godt å si. Heller ikke handler det om en arabisk-afrikansk konflikt, selv om mediene ofte later som det. Her er en flott artikkel som kan kanskje gi et nytt syn på konflikten for mange ... om man tillater slike ting som fakta å komme i veien for sine fordommer ...

Smell of Oil Behind the Solicitude for Darfur People?
John Laughland, The Guardian

If proof were needed that Tony Blair is off the hook over Iraq, it came not during the Commons debate on the Butler report on July 21, but rather at his monthly press conference the following morning. Asked about the crisis in Sudan, Blair replied: “I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can.” This last phrase means that troops might be sent — as Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff, immediately confirmed — and yet the reaction from the usual anti-war campaigners was silence.

Blair has invoked moral necessity for every one of the five wars he has fought in this, surely one of the most bellicose premierships in history. The bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, the 74-day bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999, the intervention in Sierra Leone in the spring of 2000, the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001, and the Iraq war last March were all justified with the bright certainties which shone from the prime minister’s eyes. Blair even defended Bill Clinton’s attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus grounds that it was really manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin.

Although in each case the pretext for war has been proved false or the war aims have been unfulfilled, a stubborn belief persists in the morality and the effectiveness of attacking other countries. The Milosevic trial has shown that genocide never occurred in Kosovo — although Blair told us that the events there were worse than anything that had happened since World War II, even the political activists who staff the prosecutor’s office at the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague never included genocide in their Kosovo indictment. And two years of prosecution have failed to produce one single witness to testify that the former Yugoslav president ordered any attacks on Albanian civilians in the province. Indeed, army documents produced from Belgrade show the contrary.

Like the Kosovo genocide, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as we now know, existed only in the fevered imaginings of spooks and politicians in London and Washington. But Downing Street was also recently forced to admit that even Blair’s claims about mass graves in Iraq were false. The prime minister has repeatedly said that 300,000 or 400,000 bodies have been found there, but the truth is that almost no bodies have been exhumed in Iraq, and consequently the total number of such bodies, still less the cause of their deaths, is simply unknown.

In 2001, we attacked Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin Laden and to prevent the Taleban from allegedly flooding the world with heroin. Yet Bin Laden remains free, while the heroin ban imposed by the Taleban has been replaced by its very opposite, a surge in opium production, fostered by the warlords who rule the country. As for Sierra Leone, it is literally the most miserable place on earth. So much for Blair’s promise of a “new era for Africa”.

The absence of anti-war skepticism about the prospect of sending troops into Sudan is especially odd in view of the fact that Darfur has oil. For two years, campaigners have chanted that there should be “no blood for oil” in Iraq, yet they seem not to have noticed that there are huge untapped reserves in both southern Sudan and southern Darfur. As oil pipelines continue to be blown up in Iraq, the West not only has a clear motive for establishing control over alternative sources of energy, it has also officially adopted the policy that our armies should be used to do precisely this. Oddly enough, the oil concession in southern Darfur is currently in the hands of the China National Petroleum Company. China is Sudan’s biggest foreign investor.

We ought, therefore, to treat with skepticism the US Congress declaration of genocide in the region. No one, not even the government of Sudan, questions that there is a civil war in Darfur, or that it has caused an immense number of refugees. Even the government admits that nearly a million people have left for camps outside Darfur’s main towns to escape marauding paramilitary groups. The country is awash with guns, thanks to the various wars going on in Sudan’s neighboring countries. Tensions have risen between nomads and herders, as the former are forced south in search of new pastures by the expansion of the Sahara desert. Paramilitary groups have practiced widespread highway robbery, and each tribe has its own private army. That is why the government of Sudan imposed a state of emergency in 1999.

But our media has taken this complex picture and projected on to it a simple morality tale of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They gloss over the fact that the Janjaweed militia come from the same ethnic group and religion as the people they are allegedly persecuting — everyone in Darfur is black, African, Arabic-speaking and Muslim. Campaigners for intervention have accused the Sudanese government of supporting this group, without mentioning that the Sudanese defense minister condemned the Janjaweed as “bandits” in a speech to the country’s parliament in March. On July 19, moreover, a court in Khartoum sentenced six Janjaweed soldiers to horrible punishments, including the amputation of their hands and legs. And why do we never hear about the rebel groups which the Janjaweed are fighting, or about any atrocities that they may have committed?

It is far from clear that the sudden media attention devoted to Sudan has been provoked by any real escalation of the crisis — a peace agreement was signed with the rebels in April, and it is holding. The pictures on our TV screens could have been shown last year. And we should treat with skepticism the claims made for the numbers of deaths — 30,000 or 50,000 are the figures being bandied about — when we know that similar statistics proved very wrong in Kosovo and Iraq. The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur, since the beginning of the conflict in 2003, is not greater than 1,200 on all sides. And why is such attention devoted to Sudan when, in neighboring Congo, the death rate from the war there is estimated to be some 2 or 3 million, a tragedy equaled only by the silence with which it is treated in our media? We are shown starving babies now, but no TV station will show the limbless or the dead that we cause if we attack Sudan. Humanitarian aid should be what the Red Cross always said it must be — politically neutral. Anything else is just an old-fashioned colonial war — the reality of killing, and the escalation of violence, disguised with the hypocritical mask of altruism. If Iraq has not taught us that, then we are incapable of ever learning anything.

John Laughland is an associate of Sanders Research Associates.

Postet av: Omar al-Bashir

Om man tillater slike ting som fakta е komme i veien for sine fordommer.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/820864.stmThe United Nations has repeatedly pressed China to stop supporting regimes with negative human rights records but China, ever the business-minded nation, has signed deals and agreements with several countries, including Zimbabwe, Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, and Chad. All have serious human rights violations against their citizens to their names, including China. The UN has imposed sanctions on countries to facilitate change within the governments, but with China sweeping in and filling the business void, countries like Sudan no longer need to deal with the United States or Europe to stay afloat. Unlike the UN, China does not impose conditions with its financial aid. It gives, and in return, wants only resources. The main concerns for the United Nations are the hotspots, with Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe and the crisis in Darfur at the forefront. China has aligned itself with Robert Mugabe since he fought Joshua Nkomo for leadership of the newly-independent Zimbabwe. When Mugabe won in 1980, Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) party was wiped out by Mugabe’s more militant Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) faction and China’s ties with the southern African nation were solidified. It is also widely believed that China has also given Zimbabwe the technology to jam satellite media transmissions coming from inside and outside the country. Former Pentagon official and president of Refugees International Ken Bacon, on a visit to Sudan, also reported seeing weaponry outside of El-Fasher, Sudan, with Chinese writing on it, furthering concerns that China has been providing arms to the Sudanese government. El-Fasher is home to one of Darfur’s largest evacuee camps and is frequently a target for janjaweed militia attacks. Aviation Week and Space Technology, an industry journal, reported that China sold US$100 million in Shenyang fighter jets to the Islamic government in Khartoum. The US also has an annual trade deficit to China of over US$200 million annually. The European Union, with a trade deficit to China of at least US$126 billion, is China’s largest trading partner. Due to these monumental debts, both the US and the EU are inextricably linked to China. However, as China’s relationships in Africa strengthen, the rest of the world will have to decide what their stance will be in the future. Will they come to adopt the same non-interference policy in order to remain competitive in the global market? Or will other countries stick to the current “sanctions until something changes” game plan? What kind of blow – political, economic or otherwise – will that be to the rest of the countries trying to bring about political and economic stability and human rights in Africa?

Postet av: Islamistenes paradis.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2113182nSearching For Jacob“60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley traveled to the Darfur region in Sudan to track down a boy whose village was destroyed by the Janjaweed Arab militia. Millions of people have been displaced.

Postet av: Shoaib

Har jeg sagt at Kina ikke brter menneskerettigheter da? Det andre innlegget, vel igjen snakker man om janjaweed arab militia ... og igjen ignorerer man at de er like "arabiske" som alle andre i regionen. Men men, deg om det.

04.11.2006 @ 14:14
URL: http://islam.weblogg.no
Postet av: Shoaib

Bare for е ha sagt det. AT jeg mener at de ikke er arabere eller alt det andre, betyr selvsagt ikke at jeg ikke fordшmmer handlingene. Ei heller utelukker jeg fullstendig at de stшttes av Khartum. Jeg betviler bare slike demoniseringer av Khartoum, og er redd for en ny mengde produserte "fakta" ala Irak. (Khartoum ser jeg ikke pе som sе veldig islamsk, Omar Al Bashir er en diktator, ikke noe mer, ikke noe mindre)

04.11.2006 @ 14:17
URL: http://islam.weblogg.no
Postet av: Лиса-Алиса

Мой парень пикапер, но за каким ему это до сих пор не разберусь. Я красива, соблазнительна (ну всё в этом духе), а он все равно потопал на тренинг-мастре, где учат соблазнть :(. Скажите люди на какой х.. ему это?

13.12.2006 @ 18:26
URL: http://net

Skriv en ny kommentar:

Husk meg ?




Trackback-URL for dette innlegget:
hits Site Meter