If you want to save Darfur or the Congo or whoever — YOU go die for them.

A good summary of this lesson is contained in a Non-Aligned Movement resolution condemning what the resolution termed “unilateral coercive measures” (http://www.nam.gov.za/resolutions/coerce.htm):
1. Urges all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which create obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding the full realisation of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the right of individuals and peoples to development;
2. Rejects the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the realisation of all human rights of vast sectors of their populations, inter alia children, women, the elderly, disabled and ill people;
3. Reaffirms, in this context, the right of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development

Keep in mind the timing of the writing of this resolution, April 23, 1999. This was at the time of the Clinton led “humanitarian” crusade against the “genocide” in Kosovo. So this is what they were talking about in the resolution. They we’re calling on a White Knight in shining armor to save the non-white Third World from “genocide”, but rather for the non-white Third World to be left alone by the White Knight in shining armor.

http://www.radio4all.net/pub/files/redeye@coopradio.org/91-1-20070331-Darfur_and_Iraq.mp3

Glenn is accurate in his designating DRC killing as a genocide based on this clear and legal definition. As far as Soviet Union, Sabri, I think the term “genocide” as noted is realtively new. Certainly, there were many cases of Genocide perpetrated by the US in “settling” North America, but there was no international law, or court, or UN, or human rights watch back then to call it.

Mamdani in his article goes further than Glenn. He states that while there is genocide in the Congo, what is happening in Darfur is different. That difference is critical from a legal perpective. The perpetrators of genocide (an international crime) could be tried and convicted. Darfur is a mix of civil and tribal conflict with no clear categorical “victim”. Certainly those civilians are victims but they are not being killed with the intent of eliminating a category or ethnicity/race of people. There in lies the difference.

But in some ways this is all tragic and sadly silly because organized war has been outlawed by any and all nation-states who have signed onto the major treaties over the last 60 years (including the US). Only self-defense is seen as a possible reason for a nation-state to be involved in conflict. This cannot be twisted into a “preemptive” assumption of a threat. Once again, the real criminal is right here.

The number is agreed upon by historians who are very critical of Israel, including Norman Finkelstein and Raul Hillberg. Plus, it’s generally accepted that 11 million people died in Nazi concentration camps, in addition to Jews, Gypsies, Russian POWs, and Polish.

Holy cow! You really should be naming names here. Which corporations and armies? This could go a long way to showing people just how exploitative the US and Europe is of African countries.

The following are just a few points:

One: you state in reference to the human cost in Darfur with the following, “Possibly a quarter million people have lost their lives in Darfur”

Comment: Without ever trying to devalue the human cost in a Darfur, I submit to you that you did not provide any substantiation of such a number that incidentally is the mantra of U.S. imperialism and Israel. Throwing out such numbers so carelessly is disservice to your research and implies that that you indict Sudan as the genocide maker while it is known that both sides are paying high price for a conflict ignited and financed by mainly the United States. In addition, while it is safe to say that the United States is inflicting genocide on the Iraqi people to conquer their country and its resources, Sudan, despite the dimension of the current war and human loss never targeted the Darfurians until the United States ignited that conflict with the obvious purpose to partition Sudan and control its oil, uranium, and water resources. Also, you did not mention the human loss on the side opposing Darfur sessions. At any case, qualifying depicting the human cost in the war in Darfur with word “possibly” is abstract and not reliable especially in absence of data not supplied by the United States and its vassals.

Two: you say, “In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as many as five million have died since 1994 in overlapping convulsions of ethnic and state-sponsored massacre A human death toll that approaches the Nazi’s annihilation of Jews in World War Two — an ongoing holocaust — unfolds without a whiff of complaint from the superpower.”

Comment: again, you are concluding your argument as per ready-made parables. The conflict in Congo is a civil war (and you stated that indirectly by calling it “overlapping” with many actors and each side to the conflict is losing a lot of its own population. Yet, calling it genocide is not correct. The Soviet Union lost 20 million in WW2, but we cannot call that genocide, while certainly the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima with over 158,000 people incinerated instantly was THE GENOCIDE. Furthermore, by comparing that number of People killed in Congo to the sacred cow number of six million European Jews killed by Hitler is erroneous since in Congo we are talking a period that extends over 13 years of time. In addition, the number of six millions Jews killed by Nazi violence is dubious and the debate is now raging to define it without Zionist and Israeli propaganda. Further, you isolated the Congo tragedy from its historical origins when the United States Killed Patrice Lumumba and then supported the 20-year long dictatorship of Mobuto. You see, it was the United States at the origin of the killing in Congo and bringing that to light instead of making just a spectator who is waiting for an opportunity to interven put that tragedy in the right historical frame.

Three: you state, “the answer is simple: in Sudan, the US has a geopolitical nemesis to confront: Arabs, and their Chinese business partners.”

Comment, your use of the word, “nemesis” in this context is not only erroneous but also derogatory and pointless. Let me explain, when one states that this or that one is the nemesis of a particular entity you assign to this entity a quality of goodness since its has a enemy. You could have simply stated that the Chinese are now the capitalist rivals of the United States while the U.S. turned all Arabs into enemies after the suspicious event of 9/11. Nemesis, means also an enemy durable in time and epochal length. Such thing does not apply to the United States vs. the Arabs or Chinese.

Four: You state, “The US did nothing to interfere, because they had two actors in the game.”

Comment: your statement is some what preposterous and appears to be interventionist”, why do you think that the United States has to interfere in everything. Why did not you invoke the United Nations, the Conference of the European Unity, or other? Besides, you seem critical that the US did not interfere but you attribute that because it has two actors in the game. Well this is reductionist at best, because you cannot make such an argument without explaining first the American imperialist thinking.

Good work, Glen

B J Sabri