Murder, Rape, Camels and Peace: Darfur Now?

Darfur Peace talks, hosted by the ever more fascinating Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, are slated to begin Sunday. Bizarrely Gaddafi characterized the four-year-old genocide as " a conflict over a camel." However the talks are in jeopardy before they begin.

Last week the government of Sudan actually shelled one of the largest refugee camps in Darfur, home to over 95,000 people already driven from their homes by systematic ethnic cleansing and violence. Are the two linked, extreme violence and peace?

According to my colleague, former Marine Captain Brian Steidle, you bet. In a press statement last week he explained: "This action is consistent with tactics the government of Sudan used prior to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in the Nuba mountains of southern Sudan in 2004. I have spent the last three years trying to alert the world to the tactics they use to jockey for more land ahead of peace talks." They not only get more land, but angry and discouraged rebel groups now refuse to come to the Peace talks.

So what is the answer? The United Nations and activists want peace and protection for those caught up in the conflict, along with punishment for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. 26,000 UN peacekeepers are due to be deployed to Darfur, although they will have to be permitted to enter the Sudan to do their job. Darfuris are reported to be excited, God knows they need hope, but as Elie Wiesel said over a year ago: "Don't wait for the criminal tormentors to give their permission, go in anyway."

We all need hope and activists (and Hollywood) count on it. Ted Braun's creditable, star-studded film about Darfur, Darfur Now, uses HOPE as its central theme. Having been steeped in the issue of Darfur for three years I believe we need to harness our hope to concrete demands to our political leaders: both here, in Europe and throughout the world.

As the U.S. imposes sanctions on Iran, what about sanctions on the government of Sudan? What about demanding the EU do the same? Sudanese oil revenue assets in dollars could be frozen. The ability for Sudanese leaders to move freely around the Western world could be curtailed. These constraints would surely lead to positive change and peace for the people of Darfur.

In the meantime pressure your elected officials to make ending genocide and crimes against humanity a priority.

Go see the all films out there on the subject and don't forget to add The Devil Came on Horseback to your Netflix cue: it comes out on DVD Tuesday October 30th, the same day I will be screening it in Washington DC for members of congress. We have sent a copies of the DVD to President Bush, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and Zalmay Khalilzad, just in case they don't have a Netflix account!

Follow Jane Wells on Twitter: www.twitter.com/3Generations

Comments

[Darwinman]

The Iraqi and Darfurian situations are exactly the same, the government commit vast genocides against the political minority in the country. No on, not even Howard Zinn can deny the Saddam was responsible for genocide against the Kurds and the Shia, we found the mass graves and the evidence after the 1st Gulf War. We have in Darfur the government wiping out people simply because of their religion. If the Iraq War was wrong, a Iranian war wrong, why then is a Sudan War okay?

Progressives condemn Bush for unilateralism, if the UN Security Council does not approve a military action against the Sudan Gov"t, which it most likely won"t do, due to; sovereignty issues what then, does the US invade unilaterally why is a Iraqi unilateral invasion wrong but a Darfur invasion okay?

If military force is used, unfortunately both service people and innocent civilians will die, military force will be the only way to stop this genocide, is service people and innocent civilians dying in Darfur okay, why not then in Iraq?

A Darfur invasion will cost billions of dollars, plus we will have to replace the gov"t with a democracy, is not spending billions to save a people and bring a democracy evil? Why not in Darfur?

The Iraq war has been categorically condemn, because it was shown that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, thus they were not a threat. A secondary goal was to liberate the people of Iraq, still the war has been condemned. Darfur is not a threat to the US, and the only mission would be to liberate the people, why is this okay in Darfur and not Iraq?

If the US people, in the middle of the war begin to oppose the war, before the mission can be finished, will progressives advocate that we pull the troops, if not why then for Iraq?

How many will answers these questions, and not simply dismiss me as a neo-con troll
Answer 0

[Pdubya]

can't bush just save sudan for his next war occupation?

[UltraClassic]

Well, the fact is Darfur has no oil and is not attempting to build a nuclear weapon. So in that respect, what goes on in Darfur does not affect our national interest unless you feel the concentration of islamofascists is a bad thing. But if you do, logic would dictate that you also feel we should maintain forces in Iraq.