From the Free People's Movement:
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?281
Large numbers of people around the world, including many Black people in the U.S., are justifiably disturbed by the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, which has left hundreds of thousands dead and turned many more into refugees.
Their despair has caused many of these well meaning people to line up behind the forces calling for intervention in Darfur, but as we’ll point out, such an intervention can only lead to increased agony for the Sudanese people.
The nature of the conflict:
Many of those calling for intervention in Sudan describe the situation there as a “genocide” of Black Africans by Arab Muslims. As horrendous as the situation is the Sudan is, what is occurring there is not genocide. Rather, it is a civil war between groups of Black Muslim nomads backed by the government, and groups of Black Muslim farmers in the South, with both sides carrying out numerous atrocities.
The ‘Save Darfur Coalition’:
The list of organizations that originally came together to form the ‘Save Darfur Coalition’ – which has called this and other demonstrations – reads like a who’s who of reaction. Christian fundamentalist groups like National Association of Evangelicals and ‘Sudan Sunrise’ (who seek to convert the people of Sudan to their particular religious doctrine) joined together with the pro-Iraqi war, neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Zionist Anti-Defamation League to form this coalition, while groups like the NAACP and Africa Action were originally excluded. In fact, many of the earlier rallies called by the ‘Save Darfur Coalition’ did not have a single Sudanese or Muslim speaker!
The reactionaries behind this coalition are now joined by a coalition of prominent liberals, Democratic and Republican politicians, labor organizations, and celebrities like George Clooney and Mia Farrow.
The one thing these organizations and individuals have in common is their call for intervention in Sudan; but this is something even George W. Bush and Tony Blair have gotten behind! Both of these war criminals called for a UN “peacekeeping operation” to back up an already existing African Union (AU) force of 7,000 at the UN General Assembly in late 2006.
So, what is the solution to the conflict in Sudan: the intervention of U.S. forces, a U.S.-led UN peacekeeping force, or a “multinational peacekeeping force” as the organizers of this march have called for? None of the above!
Troops in?
It is beyond absurd to appeal to the same government that left thousands of poor Black people to die in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to save poor Africans in Sudan. The politicians in the U.S. government represent the rich and their drive for infinitely increasing profits. They have absolutely no interest in the well being of the people of Darfur. This is the government of U.S. capitalism – which was built up on the backs of kidnapped African slaves – that we’re talking about!
It’s not just BushS
ome in the U.S. still harbor illusions that the Democrats will bring an end to the Iraq war and create a “peacekeeping force” to be sent to Sudan, but this ignores a fundamental reality: that the Democrats serve the interests of the same rich elite as the Republicans, just in a different way.
Indeed, a key criticism of the Bush administration by the Democrats has been that its policies in the Middle East have limited the ability of the U.S. government to invade other countries like Iran!
The last time the U.S. carried out a “humanitarian mission” in Africa was under Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993. While ostensibly in Somalia to “help out,” U.S. forced massacred over a thousand Somalis who opposed their presence. Not long after, in 1998, Clinton ordered U.S. forces to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan for supposedly “harboring Al-Qaeda terrorists.” The only thing they blew up were several civilians and the only pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
While it’s true that some 300,000 Sudanese people have lost their lives in this civil war, it’s also the case that over 600,000 are dead as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was backed by both the Democrats and Republicans. Calling for the U.S. imperialists to intervene to stop the civil war in Sudan is like calling on a group of rapists to stop a rape!
Popular pressure?
Even if the rich capitalist elite that rules the U.S. decides to send troops into Sudan, it will not be a result of popular pressure. It took years of constant and intense struggle by people in the U.S. and an unbeatable enemy to force the U.S. rulers to withdraw their forces from Viet Nam. A few small protests will never force them to send their troops in anywhere! No, if the U.S. rulers decide to send troops into Darfur, it will be because they perceive it to be in their interests, and they will do it in a way that they see fit!
And indeed, the U.S. government is already intervening to an extent in Sudan, and has been for some time. It is a documented fact that the U.S. government has funded “rebel” militias in Sudan since the late 70's, with the aim of overthrowing the Sudanese government, which supports the Palestinian people’s struggle against the occupation of their land, and has established strong economic ties with China. These “rebel” militias have carried out numerous war crimes, and have often refused to sign any peace treaties. They are no friends of the Sudanese people.
What about the UN and AU?
There are many who place their hopes in a “multinational peacekeeping force” to end the carnage in Darfur, but the reality is that such a force will only deepen the misery of the already suffering Sudanese people. The UN itself is dominated by the U.S. government and the imperialist governments of Britain, Germany and France – which are the very governments that have historically exploited Africa, through colonialism, neo-colonialism, slavery, etc., for their own gains. The current civil war in Sudan itself, like those that have preceded it, was born of divisions between the north and south of the country that British colonizers created in the first place!
The “fig leaf” of the UN is in reality a blood soaked whip. Several murderous campaigns – from Korea to Haiti – have been carried out under what revolutionary Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara called “the discredited flag of the United Nations.”
Currently, an “international peacekeeping force” is carrying out the bloody occupation of Haiti, where a coup orchestrated by the U.S. government ousted democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. These “peacekeepers” have repeatedly attacked unarmed men, women and children, killing hundreds, and have prevented thousands from reaching the polls in local and national elections.The last thing the people of Sudan need is a similarly vicious armed force in their country, whether it carries out its occupation under the flag of the UN or the AU, or both!
What can we do?
The key task of those in the United States today is the fight for an immediate end to the decimating occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the prevention of any future attacks on Iran. The best thing those in the U.S. can do for their brothers and sisters in Darfur is to fight against “their own” rulers in Washington. Regime change begins at home! More Sudanese people are currently dying from easily preventable causes, like disease and hunger, than from bullets. The same system that spawned the civil war in Sudan keeps the people it effects most poor and hungry!
Then there is the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has raged on for years, leaving almost four million dead. This conflict – the bloodiest since World War II – is almost never mentioned in the mainstream capitalist press.The only lasting solution for the misery and poverty that hundreds of millions of Africans are forced to dwell in lies in revolution – to oust the rich parasites, from Khartoum to Washington, who live off of the exploitation of the toiling masses, and reorganize society to meet human need. No to imperialist intervention! UN “peacekeepers” out of Haiti! U.S./UN/AU hands off Sudan!
-----------------------------
Socialists should understand that the solution is not supporting ruling class gangsters against other gangsters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Finally, some leftists making sense. No bullshit wars in Darfur, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia etc.
I find serious political problems in this essay. First, though the author ridicules that fact that there were no Sudanese or Muslim at Save Darfur rallies, does this person seriously believe that many Sudanese in refugee camps do not want foreign assistance? This is less of a political problem, but more a general criticism of trying to "speak for everyone."
Most of the anti-imperialist politics of this essay lay in criticizing government actions of decades ago - if not centuries - not the real geopolitical conditions today. While it's fair to be critical of governments who attack colonialism while be colonialists, its another thing to lump the actions of imperialist countries 100 years ago with their governments today.
If the UN was such a tool for imperialists, then why do the same "imperialists" (Germany, Spain, etc.) opposse the imperialist war of US and UK in Iraq? These imperialists are not a united front, nor are governments doomed to never do good.
Real anti-imperialism is not isolationism. The Socialist Party of America WAS WRONG to opposse World War II despite that the US was allying to an authoritarian Soviet Union and both would commit crimes. Why? Because fascism and nazism would destroy any progressive hopes for a better world.
The truth is, a real AU/UN peace keeping force would do alot of good even if capitalist powers were involved. Grandiose calls for Americans to overthrow our own government aren't even radical, they are utopian. This type of argument creates a scenario where the US can never do good: if it doesn't intervene evil happens, if it does intervene its evil. We need to move path this empty rhetoric not only to build real progressive movements at home, but find solutions in Sudan.
Of course, there are other problems in this essay like lumping Democrats and Republicans together, correlating intentional neoliberal destruction of our government's relief administration with the potential for Americas to have a good FEMA, and seeing no problem with a neo-imperialist China investing in Sudan and happily ignoring human rights violations.
But that's for another entry.
David Duhalde
National Organizer
Young Democratic Socialists
I think your reply reflects more than anything, the DSA's politics, so this is a good opportunity to discuss them:
It is true that imperialism has metamophosized since the WW I, but to say that it doesn't exist is to say that the last wars America has waged were made purely because of "moral" reasons. This throwing materialist analysis to the dustbin, and not realizing that the fundamental thing that moves states today are realpolitik. To claim states can act on "humanitarian" affairs is to misunderstand the fact that these states operate because of economic self-interests. I think this is pretty self-evident.
America has deployed thousands of mercenaries in Colombia as we speak. A few years ago, they also incinerated Serbia to the point of throwing it back probably 20 years.
About the UN: the UN has had its fair shair of imperialist affairs, starting with the Korean War, and going to as recent as the affair in Haiti.
We never lumped all the imperialists together, in the contrary, we understand that the bourgeosie is made up of different factions, each with different interests in the market. WWI, is perhaps, the best example of how imperialists dont always act together.
I think that your point about "anti-imperialism" not being "isolationism" really defines the schism between real socialism and social democracy: the claim that the interests of the american state are in the interests of the americans themselves. This type of thinking, this "social nationalism" was what led to the dissolution of the Socialist international, with social democrats backing their own countries in the WWI while revolutionary socialists taking an internationalist position. The point is not about "us" being "isolationist", because we are not the "state" and the "state" clearly will try to always shut down the gains we have already made.
Asking a country to end "genocide" inside other borders is misunderstanding that states have real economic self-interests, and that the states themselves arise from the internal contradictions inherent in their economic systems. The economic infrastructure of society is owned by a class that has certain economic interests, and when acting as a class, they almost always act on what they perceive their interests.
There are many terrible things happening in the world, however, giving reasons for a country to become a "world police" causes many problems.
Good response. I just want to clarify I never called for the US to intervene along (or even at all), but for there to be a multi-national effort with or without the US. Once again, I never said the US wasn't imperialist. I never called for it to be the world police.
But the facts you present once again are misleading. For example, when the Soviets boycotted the UN vote on Korea, subsequently the UN supported the US led-effort. The UN, like any institution, can be subverted when certain actors do nothing.
Under your faulty logic, once a state doesn't become imperialist or capitalist in your opinion it can intervene as much as it wants. So the Chinese invasion of Vietnam could be defended, Soviet actions in Eastern Europe, etc. (not by you per say, but by "anti-imperialist").
The only point of mine you addressed (since for example I didn't defend Plan Colombia and have worked against it since high school) is that you aren't being an isolationist because you aren't the state. Under that logic, we are not socialists because we are the not state. You are being an isolationist until you present a scenario where the US, with any number of actors, can intervene anywhere.
Your logic falls into the trap that people should die and the US should do nothing because you don't like the American policies. Do I think the US should act alone? Of course not. But I think some action must be taken by external forces. Doesn't have to be military action either.
As my Trotskyist High School teacher said "socialism isn't death camps" - it also shouldn't be absolving oneself of ending genocides in the name of anti-imperialism. We had different visions of socialism, but knew the "you gotta let people suffer until they become revolutionaries"
was nonsense .
First, I never cheered on Chinese imperialism. I think China is capitalist, and anyone who cannot see this, is either too stuck up in trotskyism or chinese fanboyism.
Can you tell me about any multinational intervention (except WW II, that is a very difficult scenario, and it deserves its own discussion) of imperialists that have actually help to root out suffering, instead of intensifying it?
The "solution" you are proposing is nothing new in the left. The Sachmanite Socialist workers' party, (were the dsa's posterboy harrington came), in their virulent hatred for the Soviet Union, ended backing up American imperialist endeavours. It is no wonder why a lot of former sachmanites ended as neocons or social democrats. You essentially want to back imperialist countries (UN) against other imperialist/reactionary forces.
Your example about the UN and the Soviet Union shows nothing new. Whether the USSR was socialist or not. the fact was that it was against the USSR's geopolitical interests a UN backed invasion in Korea. What you are proposing, is essentially, a "humanitarian intervention", which do not exist in the realm of imperialist realpolitik. In essence, you are basically aiding imperialists by making a "white man's burden" that could serve to justify a future intervention.
In fact, the only reason what is happening in Darfur is being labeled as a genocide is because American oil companies are craving for Sudanese oil. THe only reason why they cannot enter is because of certain sanctions. However, oil companies in China, malasya, and India, are already reaping benefits from Sudan.
People are dying everywhere, I am not asking the american state (or any other capitalist state for the matter) to help stop the death and desturction because they are part of the cause of it. It would be like asking a neonazi to help in an anti-racist campaign.
You call it "isolationism", I call it "internationalism". i refuse the backing of workers being sent to die for their ruling class interests--and to kill other workers in the process. The only reason we are faced with this choices is because dissappointed radicals, instead of promoting pivotal ideas like internationalism, end up tailing behind their ruling classes in search of a "realistic choice".
The mission of socialists is not to choose between the "choiceless choices" in spectacular politics--it is to actually try to create an alternative. You call that "utopianism", I call it "socialism".
I never said you did cheer China, the author the piece seems to give them a free pass. And you are the one who presents nothing new but empty rhetoric. For example, Harrington was in the Workers Party, not SWP (Shachtman was in both). Let's talk about today, not 60 years ago.
The Soviet example, which you couldn't counter, was that the UN couldn't have supported the US in the Korean War had the Soviet vetoed it in the Security Council. They didn't - deal with it. I didn't dispute the fact the UN was being used by the US, but that you were being loose with the facts as to how that UN intervention occured.
Once again, I never called for a "white man's burdern," I never said the US should be the one going in (certainly not alone). It a moot point anyway because we won't be going in. I am not disputing how the US manipulates its intervention. My point is take out the US, but in the AU, its a different story. Much of your case relies on the US going in - which was never my argument.
While you make a seeminly strong case about naming a intervention that made the situation vastly better (let's look at Kosovo, Somalia, etc. as one person did the first post), I would just say that you also don't show how interventions don't also prevent situations from getting worse. It also doesn't address that imperialists often have a side in such genocides (Pol Pot, East Timor, etc.) - so they won't be going in anyway. That part, you'd surely agree with.
My main point is not to disagree with your ideology of not sending workers to fight workers in capitalist wars, but that your belief system provides no real solution for the people of Darfur. You wipe your hands clean, say a revolutionary slogan, and then leave. It might be anti-imperialist, but it ain't pro-people.
I think I've made my points as clear as I can.
First, if you want your political opinion to have any worth, you must have some understanding on history. I point at Shachman, for example, to prove that what you are essentially arguing for has already been done, and has failed. I need to obviously point you out this because "history repeats, once as a tragedy, then as a farse", and you are trying to repeat precisely that "farse".
If you read carefully my last post, I have been adressing the whole imperialist millieu in its totality, not only America. Again, what happened in the UN proves nothing. Can you point out if it is in any of the imperialist nations' geopolitical interests to intervene "humanely" in Darfur? Why would it be in the interest of France, Britain, or America to intervene without causing any more damage? The USSR didn't want an intervention in Korea precisely because it was against their geopolitical interests--it wasn't simply moral self-righteousness.
The AU already has 7 000 troops deployed in Sudan.
You are making a "white man's burden" argument precisely because you are trying to justify an imperialist intervention from the UN, which is dominated by white capitalist nations. You may be doing it unconsciously, but you are still doing it.
All the examples of "multinational interventions" I gave did nothing but actually intensify suffering. Sending Serbia to the stone age is not making things less worse.
If something keeps not working, why beating the dead horse?
Maybe what I say doesn't provides an immediate solution to the people of Darfur, but your "solution" is no solution at all. Your solution would simply make things worse for the people of Darfur, and the world. It echos the same argument the imperialist had to bomb the shit out of Serbia and Iraq.
There is a lot of crap happening in the US right now, and it is worrysome how socialists focus so much on third world adventures when their nations are still really broken.
Post a Comment