Ten Reasons Why “Save Darfur” is a PR Scam

Justifying the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa

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 US-backed or US-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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US’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.

Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrcik Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese “genocide” worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.

4. It’s all about Sudanese oil.

Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet’s energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.

5. It’s all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.

Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world’s supply. When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity. But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.

6. It’s all about Sudan’s strategic location

Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world’s easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan water resources of regional significance too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.

7. The backers and founders of the “Save Darfur” movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.

According to a copyrighted Washington Post story this summer

“The “Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country – the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum…

“The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year…

“Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars.”

Though the “Save Darfur” PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manfacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.

8. None of the funds raised by the “Save Darfur Coalition”, the flagship of the “Save Darfur Movement” go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.

None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act.

9. “Save Darfur” partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur President Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur.

Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.

The PR campaign which depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, who are generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan, is slick, seamless and attractive, and seems to leave no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan’s ‘Arabs”, even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and refusing to talk to that government’s negotiators is a sure way to avoid any settlement.

10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis.

“Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camp in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback.”

Apparently Blackwater doesn’t need to come to the Congo, where hunger and malnutrition, depopulation, mass rape and the disappearance of schools, hospitals and civil society into vast law free zones ruled by an ever-changing cast of African proxies (like the son of the late and unlamented Idi Amin), all under a veil of complicit media silence already constitute the perfect business-friendly environment for siphoning off the vast wealth of that country at minimal cost.

Look for the adoption of the Congolese model across the wide areas of Africa that U.S. strategic planners call “ungoverned spaces”. Just don’t look expect to see details on the evening news, or hear about them from Oprah, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie.

Bruce Dixon is the managing editor of the Black Agenda Report, where this article first appeared. Read other articles by Bruce, or visit Bruce's website.

28 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Deadbeat said on November 29th, 2007 at 6:42am #

    I agree. Dixon seems to tiptoe around the role of Israel and their interest in this whole sordid affair.

  2. Hratche Koundarjian said on November 29th, 2007 at 7:04am #

    If your thesis was correct, why isnt the American Government backing a US led invasion of Darfur as part of the UN force? The Save Darfur Coaltion along with other NGOs around the world have not proposed a non-consensual intervention in Darfur. Your views are misplaced, misguided and frankly idiotic, and I hope will be ignored.

  3. Neal said on November 29th, 2007 at 8:01am #

    Left out of the article are the millions of deaths that occurred in Sudan prior to the death of the several hundred thousand people in the Darfur region. Once the full scale of the killing is understood – and, like the references to Congo, one must also go back some time in Sudan to understand the matter -, what appears in the article is hollow nonsense. Which is not to suggest that I favor intervention in Sudan. Rather, my point is that the article is disingenuous.

    First, there has been war in Sudan, with a short break, since 1956. Since that time, perhaps 3 million people have died in fighting and in brutal genocide campaigns, mostly against Christians and animists.

    Second, Most of those who have died have died beginning after 1983, when a forced Islamization program began to be implemented in the southern region of the country. Initially, this consisted of implementing shari’a as the law for all Sudanese, including the many millions of non-Muslims.

    For example, use of Arabic in schools was required in order to teach the Qu’ran and to impart Islamic culture. In addition, a policy of segregating males and females was put in place. Moreover, Islamic dress codes were enforced. Christian schools were eliminated as was access to financial links from foreign Christian donors.

    Not surprisingly, Christians and animists revolted against the effort to destroy their way of life. The revolt, at first, was reasonably successful. However, in time, the Sudanese government was overthrown by General ‘Umar al-Bashir (in 1989). Behind that ruler, the real power was in the hands of Islamists led by Hasan at-Turabi of the National Islamic Front.

    The government declared a jihad against “atheist and infidel” southern Sudanese. This campaign proved very successful although there were counterattacks and the like.

    The government, where it had the ability in the south, pursued a systematic policy of Arabization and Islamization, isolating non-Muslim regions (and in regions inhabited by blacks who are Muslim but not Arabic-speaking), from the outside world. With the outside world cut off, schools and churches became prime targets. Christians who refused to convert to Islam were denied food. Many others were kidnapped. Others were turned into slaves. Around Khartoum, the government forced hundreds of thousands of southern refugees to convert to Islam.

    Thousands of villages in the south were simply wiped out, the populations killed or turned into slaves. On commentator describes this point as follows:

    So extensive is the practice of slavery that it can be taken as the symbol of the southern Sudan’s tribulations. Armed factions, mostly NIF militiamen, raid villages, kill the elderly and those attempting to protect the habitation, then round up other adults, mainly women, and children. “Slave trains” carry these abductees to the north where they are sold to slave merchants who in turn sell them to work on plantations growing crops or for use as domestic servers. Some slaves are shipped to other countries of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Libya, and possibly the United Arab Emirates.

    Since 1983, but mostly since 1990′s with the brutal Islamists in real control, more or less 2 million people have died and several hundred people have been turned into slaves. The slaves have been sold not only in Sudan but in the Gulf states of the Arab regions. The government has termed its battles a Jihad, winning substantial support from Islamists in the Arab regions and a number of Arab states have, to deflect attention from the atrocities they were financing, said that “Zionism and the hand of Israel” had incited the matter.

    The article correctly notes that Sudan has natural resources. But, the concern for the people of Sudan has real supporters. And, the effort to deflect attention from the genocide supporting government of Sudan by claiming that nothing should be done to eliminate that genocide supporting government is disgraceful.

    What the article, as I see it suggests, is that because the US has an interest, the Sudanese should suffer at the hands of their brutal government. Better that millions die, after all.

  4. gerald spezio said on November 29th, 2007 at 8:22am #

    Deadbeat, Dixon doesn’t tiptoe. He wants us to tiptoe.

    And comes now, more cyber Zionists with the brutal Islamist pitch.

    The Zionist machine appears to have successfully infiltrated PZ Myers Pharingula site today.
    Try this blatant Zionist anti-Islam pitch in the guise of anti-theism.
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/speak_it_brother.php

  5. gerald spezio said on November 29th, 2007 at 9:11am #

    To illustrate just how foul and pervasive the Zionist tentacles can be, here is the same Pat Condell, a professed Brit comedian who knocks theism, on a Zionist website spouting more Zionist hatred against Islam.
    http://foehammer.net/2007/10/pat-condell-strikes-again.html

    Condell completely took PZ Myers.

    Zionist hatred is everywhere.

  6. Neal said on November 29th, 2007 at 10:15am #

    gerald spezio,

    The topic is Sudan. Consider, in Sudan, many people have died in the last 20 years.

  7. sk said on November 29th, 2007 at 10:50am #

    It may be hard to remember–given the politically calculated cluelessness of African-American leaders on this issue–but there was a time when a black leader could spot “cold blooded” manipulation about the “humanitarian project” of the day for Africa from 8,000 miles away and could dissect the process in an interpretation that has stood the test of time:

    They call it a humanitarian project and that they’re doing it in the name of freedom. And all of this, these glorious terms, are used to pave the way in your mind for what they’re going to do.

    This is all a cold-blooded act on the part of your Western powers, namely the Western powers here in the United States–interests in the United States, in England, and France, and Belgium and so forth. They want the wealth of the Congo, plus its strategic geographic position.

    The step-by-step process that was used by the press: First they fanned the flame in such a manner to create hysteria in the mind of the public. And then they shift gears and fan the flame in a manner designed to get the sympathy of the public. And once they go from hysteria to sympathy, their next step is to get the public to support them in whatever act they’re getting ready to go down with. You’re dealing with a cold calculating international machine, that’s so criminal in its objectives and motives that it has the seeds of its own destruction, right within.

    …when you’re playing basketball and they get you trapped, you don’t throw the ball away, you throw it to one of your teammates who’s in the clear. And this is what the European powers did. They were trapped on the African continent, they couldn’t stay there; they were looked upon as colonial, imperialist. So they had to pass the ball to someone whose image was different, and they passed the ball to Uncle Sam. And he picked it up and has been running it for a touchdown ever since. He was in the clear, he was not looked upon as one who had colonized the African continent. But at that time, the Africans couldn’t see that though the United States hadn’t colonized the African continent, he had colonized twenty-two million Blacks here on this continent. Because we are just as thoroughly colonized as anybody else.

    When the ball was passed to the United States, it was passed at the time when John Kennedy came into power. He picked it up and helped to run it. He was one of the shrewdest backfield runners that history has ever recorded. He surrounded himself with intellectuals–highly educated, learned, and well-informed people. And their analysis told him that the government of America was confronted with a new problem. And this new problem stemmed from the fact that Africans were now awakened, they were enlightened, and they were fearless, they would fight. So this meant that the Western powers couldn’t stay there by force. And since their own economies, the European economy and the American economy, was based upon their continued influence over the African continent, they had to find some means of staying there. So they used the “friendly” approach. They switched from the old, open colonial, imperialistic approach to the benevolent approach. They came up with some benevolent colonialism, philanthropic colonialism, humanitarianism, or dollarism. Immediately everything was Peace Corps, Crossroads, “We’ve got to help our African brothers.”…

    That leader was Malcolm X.

  8. Neal said on November 29th, 2007 at 11:31am #

    sk,

    There was a time when it was known that Sudan is one of the world’s last bastions of the buying and selling of human beings, most especially people of color.

    At what point is slavery something to ignore? At what point is a movement that actually supports raiding villages to take slaves to be ignored? At what point is a movement which allows such slaves to be bought and sold in the marketplace to be ignored?

    Sudan – and let us not mince words here – is country where slavery is legal and where villages are raided to take slaves. It is a country where slaves are bought and sold. It is a country which exports slaves to other countries, including Arab Gulf state countries where such slaves are also sold.

    Where on this earth are your values? What happened to support for human freedom?

  9. sk said on November 29th, 2007 at 11:50am #

    Here is a Realplayer audio link to Malcolm X’s talk from which above was excerpted. It’s around an hour and 24 minutes in length. When you click on above, only the first 39 minutes is played, but then the stream will automatically switch to the remaining 45 minutes. He African analysis is mostly in the second half.

  10. Neal said on November 29th, 2007 at 11:57am #

    sk,

    Do you favor or oppose slavery? If you oppose slavery, you surely ought to have something or another to say about the slave supporting government of Sudan.

  11. Arch Stanton said on November 29th, 2007 at 4:16pm #

    How refreshing: crocodile tears over the plight of the Africans, anti-Muslim agitprop and the usual western imperialist chickenshit. Until you trolls start addressing the points raised in the article with actual arguments, evidence and sources, Mr. Dixon stands uncorrected. And BTW, if you people are truly concerned about the plight of the Sudanese you can get your sanctimonious asses over to Africa, put your keyboards where your principles are, and volunteer as aid workers. Somehow I suspect that won’t be forthcoming.

  12. Max Shields said on November 29th, 2007 at 5:26pm #

    Arch Here Here!!! Bravo!!

    Nice quote sk.

  13. Neal said on November 29th, 2007 at 5:44pm #

    Arch Stanton,

    The issue here is whether slavery is something to leave in place because the party who would do something about it also happens to have other interests.

    Let us try a thought experiment. Suppose that Sudan had nothing at all to offer and had no strategic significance to the US and its allies. In fact, suppose that it were a worthless place except to those who live there and love the place. In that event, what would you do to deal with the fact that the country has slavery, that the country has, since 1983, killed about 2 million of its inhabitants for imaginary crimes and has had a sustained campaign to force people to switch religions?

  14. dan elliott said on November 29th, 2007 at 6:58pm #

    well, the first thing we have to do to deal with this “neal” is require him to provide documentation, sources, for all his assertions.

    Plus get him to at least identify which part of which country he lives & hold citizenship in.

    Next, get him to explain why massive False Imprisonment is okay but eliminating Slavery in Sudan, if such exists, is a higher priority for US citizens than preventing a “preventive war” first-strike on Iran?

    He speaks of “raids on villages”: where does he get this information? I haven’t noticed anything in the US “mainstream media” myself. ??

    hehe, look at me, he’s got me wasting my time again on his silly nonsense.

  15. dan elliott said on November 29th, 2007 at 7:19pm #

    “Neal” tells us we should as US citizens make it a priority to be concerned about “2 million” Sudanese who have been killed since 1983. If this is anything like true, it is a horrible fact. It would be one more crime to lay at the doorstep of the Zionist-controlled US “Mainstream” media as well as what passes as “left” or “alternative” media, that the US public hasn’t been getting the full story about this.

    Next “neal” tells us “nothing like this has happened in Israel”. But wait a minit: if only numbers, deaths in the millions, are acceptable spurs to moral outrage, what about the half a million Iraqi children killed by US bombing of Iraq’s power grid thereby disabling the country’s water & sewage disposal systems, leaving millions without clean water, forced to drink water contaminated by raw sewage? This water was forseeably saturated with biopathogens, carrying multiple diseases. Children were the least able to fight off these multiple infectious diseases, so half a million died.
    All this has been documented by multiple agencies, scholars, journalists. Just google “Iraq Water Supply 1994 2004″.

    What a farce: here we have this Zionazi racist pretending to be concerned about African people. Tell me, “neal”, what have you ever done to benefit African or African American people, besides try to shore up this racist snowjob about ‘save darfur”?

  16. Neal said on November 29th, 2007 at 7:32pm #

    Mr. Elliott,

    You may also want to read this: http://www.iabolish.org/aasg/bought_and_sold.pdf

    You might also want to read:

    http://www.hrusa.org/workshops/trafficking/CQResearcher.pdf

    and

    http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_in_depth/global-slavery.html

    From the last noted article:

    Hard as it is to believe that debt bondage, forced labor, and child prostitution flourish around the globe, it is harder to believe that pure chattel slavery still exits. In Sudan and Mauritania, two countries that straddle the Arab-African divide, a person can become the property of another for life, bought and sold, traded and inherited, branded and bred. Alang Ajak was 10 years old when she was captured and made a slave. She was taken in a raid on her village in southern Sudan and was branded when her master’s wife feared she would “get lost.” A hot iron pot was pressed to her leg. She has just recently escaped.

  17. John Greenwood said on November 30th, 2007 at 8:37am #

    Neal, good points. Don’t expect much more than ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs as rebuttals, however.

  18. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 30th, 2007 at 3:39pm #

    gs. Can’t anyone write about oil without your raising the subject of Jewish domination in American politics? And you stirred up deadbeat. How about a nice (old) joke, going back to when we were kids? A man was telling his friend that the most beautiful women in the world live in New York City; then he paused and thought a minute, and said, “Except for one beach in Tel Aviv.”

    There’s Jewish domination in areas of American politics because of the nature of American politics. Overall, the wealthy who define American corporatism are as anti-Jews as ever, if not more so. Because they understand the emormous risks Israel is subjecting this country to, for the first time in the history of the United States. Whereas Israel has been in the cauldron and stirring it, for decades.

    I may know Bruce Dixon as well as any commentor in this thread. And in respondingto Mr. Dixon, I think people need to understand where Marcus Garvey was coming from, a lot more than where Israel is coming from. No, I don’t mean that Dixon has his sights on the Sudan, for displaced Katrina victims, for example; although, about the time the Chipmunk makes that suggestion…

  19. Shabnam said on November 30th, 2007 at 6:18pm #

    Sudan is a targeted Islamic country where is under attack by the United States and the Zionist forces for different reasons. The Zionists are pretending to help American empire against its enemy the Islamofascist, so the Zionists are in the driving seat implementing their plan and pushing the Zionist agenda forward and promising the Sudanese OIL in the process. One of the Zionist motivations is access to Red Sea since water is going to be more important for the Middle East in the near future and other objectives are disintegration of Sudan into many satellite states to support Zionist project and attack on Islamic civilization and elimination of Israel’s enemies who are pro Palestinian.
    The US have been successful reaching Chadian cheap oil without sacrificing financial resourses or American lives.
    The Zionist’s objective is through construction of different “ethnic group”, “Black African” and “White Arab” to face each other and giving military training to opportunist individuals to make “leaders” and supporting the opportunists with American money and arm, John Garang in South of Sudan and the Kurds in Iraq are examples. Through “save Darfur” lies and disinformation is spread and through organizations and coalitions such as American Jewish World Service (AJWS), the Union for Reform Judaism, the New Jersey Metro West Federation and UJA-Federation of New York and holocaust museum, their hidden agenda is pushed forward to expand the Zionist influence goes from Mauritania to Afghanistan, by attacking Arabs and demonizing Islamic Civilization using the ethnicity card for race to destabilize the targeted Islamic countries.
    Darfur ‘crisis’ is not one dimensional to claim is for OIL. The Zionist’s agenda is very real and the hand of Zionists is visible all over the map of the Middle East, and Africa. It is not helpful to hide the Zionist Connection to the manufactured ‘genocide’.
    Some of the Sudan government’s accusations are rooted in the history of the 30-year civil war, in which Israel aided the southern “rebels.” This war was supported by sending arm and money through
    “humanitarian aides” by the Zionist administration of Bill Clinton and came to an end by forcing the Sudanese government to establish semi-autonomous South with the leadership of John Garang, an Israeli and American agent, through campaign of lies and deception under a hoax accusation, by Charles Jacobs’ anti-slavery efforts targeting Sudan.
    Charles Jacobs is a Zionist liar pro Israel and director of American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) who spread lies about Sudan with spurious charge of Child Slavery which later his Slave Trade was labeled as HOAX by “60 minutes.”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/14/60II/main508928.shtml
    Charles Jacobs is the founder of the pro-Israel propaganda group CAMERA and the DAVID PROJECT. This group exists to spread false allegations of slavery against Sudan and Mauritania to demonize these countries. Jacobs is also a client of Benador Associates, a PR firm run by Eleanor Benador, whose list of clients reads like a neo-con who’s who. Benador supplied to the media many of the op-eds and talking heads that pushed for the Iraq war, and now push for war on Iran, including the famously bogus piece by an Iranian agent, Amir Taheri, which falsely claimed a new law, would compel Iranian Jews to wear yellow insignia. It was exposed later as a hoax and the newspaper where it was published had to apologize.
    Israel Shahak translated “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East” by:
    The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904)
    and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)
    In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

    Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

    http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html#top
    Shahak writes:
    “The following assay in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:
    1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking.

    2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

    3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.”
    http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/the_new_hebrew_nation.html
    He continues:
    “The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.”
    Is this not similar to what is happening in Iraq? Or in Sudan regarding establishment of semi autonomous South with a campaign of lies and deception where was accompanied with arming and funding the “Christian “ south, a lie, on bases of a phony charge, child slavery, and establishment of Kurdistan where for the past 50 years Israel collected information through Kurds by building a hospital in north of Iraq and placing Mossad in name of doctors to spy on Iraqi and plan for disintegration of Iraq using the American power and military might to achieve its objectives and to promise a good time soon after for Americans. Israel is also funding and manufacturing “minorities” in Iran to put one against the other, Persian vs. non-Persian, a phony construction, and pushing for a military strike with the Zionist pro Israel individuals such as Norman Podhoretz and Joe Lieberman, who called for military strike and Lieberman has received affirmation for his resolution to place the Iranian army on ‘terrorist’ list to smoothen the path for another Zionist war with the help of Zionist Congress and Senate and the LOBBY.
    Dixon writes:
    “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 US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the “Save Darfur” lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; ……..To suspect that the “Save Darfur” campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa. “
    Although we are grateful for your article but at the same time I am disappointed about your treatment of the subject by emphasizing on US and Oil aspect of it and not removing other layers to expose other connections such as Zionist connection to shed light on the root causes of the Darfur ‘crisis’.
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/05/08/18218861.php

  20. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 30th, 2007 at 7:59pm #

    I commend you for including names in your post. And I hope Bruce Dixon replies to you directly. But who is the cat’s paw, Shabnam, and who the cat? What part of the facts you describe would benefit Israel but not America? It all seems circular to me: if you assume the Jews-Israelis dictate American foreign policy, then Israel is the cat. If you assume not-Jews-Isrealis dictate American foreign policy, then America is the cat.

    But one fact cannot be doubted, or argued from in a circular manner: which is the bigger, fiercer, incredibly more armed and dangerous animal, which has lately been destroying peoples in the middle east who, in sheer numbers, dwarf Israel’s totals at its worst, ever, in the Levant and elsewhere? And which is now, even now, threatening to expand its murderousness to Iran, which would evidently be an exponential escalation of that murderousness, and which would threaten additionally not only Israel, but the United States and the world?

    No, Shabnam, I have to go with Arthur Silber on this. I know you are not representing the World, but Bush’s America is World Enemy #1, not Israel, and that is the most salient reality.

  21. Neal said on December 1st, 2007 at 12:24pm #

    Shabnam,

    The very article you cite from CBS indicates that, in fact, slavery is alive and well in Sudan. Yet, you deny facts stated in the very evidence you reference. Here is your noted source, so that you cannot weasel out of it:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/14/60II/main508928.shtml

    That information is also available in UN documents. It is not a matter subject to reasonable debate. It is a fact. In fact, the country’s leadership has even justified slavery – also printed in innumerable newspapers, so stop deny facts – claiming that slavery is justified by Islam. No doubt all newspapers are now liars in your book.

    In any event, the existence of chattel slavery, of itself, makes Sudan among the vilest nations on Earth. It justifies taking steps to bring down a government that allows and even justifies, as the Sudanese government has, chattel slavery.

    The CBS article also says that 2 million people died in the civil war in Sudan. Not mentioned in the article but regarding which the facts are also readily available, the vast majority of those who died (e.g. about 95%) have been Christians and animists. Also not mentioned is what became of such people.

    UN documents disclose that the Sudanese government’s Islamization program included the use of starvation as a weapon to force villages to convert to Islam. The documents also reveal that children were taken from their parents and also converted to Islam. This has occurred on a wide scale in the South of the country until just recently. I suggest you take your disagreement up with the UN.

    Now, you claim that such civil war was a Zionist plot. That is a pretty amazing plot you describe, one in which your every present, all powerful Zionists lost not quite 2 million troops fighting in what is, for Israel, a pretty far away place.

  22. Shabnam said on December 1st, 2007 at 3:50pm #

    Neal:

    I don’t deny Slavery in human history and I don’t deny slavery, not as organized as Atlantic Slave Trade, in Islamic world either. However, we are talking about Charles Jacobs and his claim of child slavery in Sudan .
    Jews, along with European Whites, were prominent in the historic Atlantic slave trade. That trade lasted for about three hundred years, until it was abolished by White Europeans. But by that time the traditional slavery was not profitable anymore and modern slavery substituted for the former.
    You are right about this article when you say it talks about slavery however, I was looking at the following lines:
    “The word did not get there in time. The kids weren’t waiting for us. I said, ‘Where are the children?’ And they said, ‘Oh– just wait– or, you know, just go over here and meet with the village leader and– you know, we– we’ll find the– the slaves.’”
    Then, Jacobson says, he watched the SPLA handlers round up children in the village and escort them over by the tree.
    “Instant slaves,” he says. “Kids of the village. Kids that were just playing around. I mean you know, I just wanted to cry.”
    Who is to be believed?”
    There are many article which shows Charles Jacobs’s accusation was wrong and it was politically motivated. The charge of child slavery in Sudan disappeared overnight when the South and Sudanese government reached an agreement favorable to the South.
    Please read the following article: 19 August 2002 which gives many references:

    http://www.espac.org/usa_sudan_pages/self_propagandists.asp

    I bring few quotes from the paper:
    “surrounding Sudan has been the self-styled “American Anti-Slavery Group” (AASG). Headed by Charles Jacobs, AASG is based in Boston. Jacobs has confirmed that the American Anti-Slavery Group works closely with Christian Solidarity International.(2) The organisation has been identified with claims of Arab “slave” raiders “enslaving” black women and children in Sudan, and has also been closely involved in subsequently discredited mass “slave redemptions”. These sorts of “slave redemptions” had earlier been dismissed by reputable human rights activists such as Alex de Waal. As director of African Rights, de Waal pointed referred to “(O)vereager or misinformed human rights advocates in Europe and the US” who “have played upon lazy assumptions to raise public outrage.” He further criticised the use of “the term ‘slave raids’, implying that taking captives is the aim of government policy.” De Waal stated: “there is no evidence for centrally-organized, government-directed slave raiding or slave trade.” (3)
    In February 2002, as the result of some excellent investigative journalism, ‘The Irish Times’, London’s ‘The Independent on Sunday’, ‘The Washington Post’ and ‘International Herald Tribune’, chose to publish, or republish, articles exposing the deep fraud and corruption at the heart of claims of “slave redemption” in Sudan.(4)

    ‘The Washington Post’ reported that in numerous documented instances “the slaves weren’t slaves at all, but people gathered locally and instructed to pretend they were returning from bondage”.(5) ‘The Independent on Sunday’ reported that it was able to “reveal that ‘redemption’ has often been a carefully orchestrated fraud”.(6)

    Rev Cal Bombay, whose Crossroads Christian Communications organisation in Canada had been involved in “slave redemptions” revealed that SPLA leaders such as Dr Samson Kwaje, in candid comments about “slave redemption”, “doubted that even 5%” of the “slaves” had ever been abducted, and that “they were coached in how to act, and stories to tell.”(7)

    “In reality, many of the ‘slaves’ are fakes. Rebel officials round up local villagers to pose for the cameras. They recruit fake slavers – a light skinned soldier, or a passing trader, to ‘sell’ them. The children are coached in stories of abduction and abuse for when the redeemer, or a journalist, asks questions. Interpreters may be instructed to twist their answers. The money, however, is very real.

    http://iviews.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IV9912-742
    http://iviews.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IV9912-755

    good luck

  23. Max Shields said on December 2nd, 2007 at 5:15pm #

    Lloyd Rowsey, I have a been making this case you are here making, more or less.

    Most of the pro-and anti-Zionist hold that the Middle East came into being circa 1948. It is a part of their counter talking points. No critical analysis, or thinking. US policies, for the anti-Zionist posters, is a contorted Zionist plot regardless of where in the world you mention, while for the Zionist posters racism toward Arabs and Muslims is completely justified.

    Never does it dawn on them that US imperialism reigns supreme and Zionism is simply its Middle Eastern beach head.

    What a pair they make. But dreadfully boring.

  24. Max Shields said on December 2nd, 2007 at 7:02pm #

    What is interesting is that all of the income from the Sudan exports, mentioned by Mr. Dixon,by-passes the people of Sudan with the exception of a few.

    This is why pumping in funds into “developing” nations (or areas like New orleans)and the warped and pathological approach by the IMF and World Bank continues to fail.

    The problem in Sudan is common. Poverty wherever it exists has this common denominator. Poverty of sustanence (whether in the economic South or in large pockets throughout the US and other “developed” nation-states) is created by 1) exports that preclude local import/replacement in city areas which allows a self-sufficient local economy 2) valued natural and non-renewable resources (land, oil, uranium and the like) is wealth that is not shared as a common heritage dividend for the indigenous people. In other words, natural resource wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. That wealth is land centric. All the world’s poverty – wherever it exists – comes down to this lack of distribution that leads universally to violence, conflict and war.

    At bottom that is the root cause of imperialism (regardless of the flavor).

  25. sk said on December 4th, 2007 at 5:02pm #

    FYI, MP3 of Bruce Dixon interviewed by Chuck Mertz of This is Hell last Saturday (Dec. 1). The whole show, which airs Saturday mornings in Chicagoland, is 4 hours but the segment where Dixon expands on the points raised in this article is between hour 3:22 and 3:55.

  26. Mike McNiven said on December 8th, 2007 at 5:40pm #

    PR or no PR, Nelson Mandela, no puppet of US/Israel lobby, believes that something aweful is happenning to the oppressed people of Darfur, and is asking the international community to help them!

    Peace with Social Justice here and abroad! Asking for anything less IS racist!

  27. Lloyd Rowsey said on December 9th, 2007 at 7:45am #

    You certainly are making my points, Max Shields. Thank you.

  28. Maria said on April 9th, 2008 at 7:39pm #

    I don’t have much to say only this:

    How can you say it’s not real when there are millions of displaced people as proof.