According to the World Food Program, about 200,000 civilians have died in Darfur, 80 percent from starvation and disease, and 20 percent from violence. Close to 700,000 have been displaced(1). This, the US government, calls a genocide.

But 600,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 as a result of violence related to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq (2) and 3.7 million have either fled to neighboring countries or are internally displaced (3).

“I read about all sorts of violence against civilians,” says Mamdani, “and there are two places that I read about – one is Iraq, and one is Darfur … And I’m struck by the fact that the largest political movement against mass violence on US campuses is on Darfur and not on Iraq.” (4)

If Darfur is modest in comparison to Iraq, both are pipsqueeks compared to Congo. There, some four million civilians have been slaughtered over several years, largely as a result of intervention by US proxies, Uganda and Rwanda.

In Somalia, 460,000 civilians have been displaced by fighting sparked by a US-backed and assisted invasion by Ethiopia (5). That invasion was aimed at ousting the popularly-backed Islamic Courts Union, which had brought a measure of stability to Somalia. “In the six months the Islamic courts (governed Somalia), less than 20 people lost their lives through violence. Now, that many die in 10 minutes,” observes Hussein Adow, a Mogadishu businessman (6).

Why is there is a Save Darfur Campaign, but no Save Congo Campaign and no Save Somalia Campaign?

Mamdani says that people in the West don’t react to the mass slaughter of civilians but to the labels their governments and media attach to them.

“Genocide is being instrumentalized by … the United States,” he explains. “It is being instrumentalized in a way that mass slaughters which implicate its adversaries are being named as genocide and those which implicate its friends or its proxies are not being named as genocide.”

Mandani calls this “the politics of naming.”

The politics of naming isn’t limited to the question of which slaughters are named genocide and which aren’t. It applies too to the question of which regimes are called dictatorial, repressive and brutal (and so must be changed), and which are not (and so should be left in peace.)

Take the case of Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. Tons of printer’s ink have been consumed by Western newspapers denouncing Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe. According to the Western narrative, he is as a dictator who steals elections, represses the opposition and cracks heads to stay in power.

But Mugabe’s government, in view of concerted efforts from outside and within to overthrow it, is remarkably restrained. Archbishop Pious Ncube, one of the government’s most vociferous critics, recently called on Zimbabwe’s former colonial master, Britain, to remove Mugabe through military means. “We should do it ourselves,” he added, “but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.” (7) (Imagine Noam Chomsky calling for a coalition of Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran and north Korea to invade the US to force Washington to end its occupation of Iraq. “I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing,” he might say, “but the people are not ready.” How long would it be before Chomsky was hustled off to jail?)

Ncube isn’t the first government opponent to threaten a campaign of violence to oust Mugabe. And yet Ncube and others remain at liberty to call for sanctions, outside military intervention and insurrection to depose the

government.

Ethiopia, on the other hand, is a cipher. It receives little coverage from the Western media, and even less attention from people who routinely denounce the Sudanese and Zimbabwean governments from the left.

That’s odd, for the Ethiopian government has all the flaws the Zimbabwean government is said to have that arouse so much moral indignation.

Ethiopia “jails it citizens without reason or trial, tortures many of them, and habitually violates its own laws.

“The government was … severely criticized for a 2005 crackdown in which tens of thousands of opposition members were jailed and nearly 200 people killed after elections in which the opposition made major gains.

“Ethiopian officials … have expelled many foreign journalists and representatives of human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.” (9)

Disputed elections, crackdowns on the opposition, expulsion of journalists: this resembles the charge sheet against Mugabe. So why isn’t Melawi as thoroughly excoriated as Mugabe is?

A July 9th Reuters’ report says, “Ethiopian prosecutors demanded the death penalty for 38 opposition officials convicted of trying to overthrow the government, treason and inciting violence.

“The officials were convicted last month of charges relating to violent protests over disputed elections in 2005 that the opposition says were rigged.

“Nearly 200 people were killed in clashes between protestors and security forces over the vote.

“Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said he regretted the post-poll violence, but blamed it on opportunistic rioters and an opposition conspiracy to topple him by force.”

I read the Reuters’ article to a friend, but replaced Ethiopia with Zimbabwe and Zenawi with Mugabe. There seemed nothing out of the ordinary to her. And indeed, it’s likely that most people in the West would not have detected the deception. It meshes with the Western narrative on Zimbabwe. If you’ve been reading Western press accounts, you would expect Mugabe to round up the

opposition (whose leaders have long threatened the violent overthrow of the government), charge them with treason, and seek their execution. But hehasn’t.

Had he, a storm of indignation would have swept the Western world. Yet Zenawi does the same, and no politician works himself up into high moral dudgeon, no calls are made for sanctions or Western military intervention, and no emergency meeting of the UN Security Council is convoked. Just a

solitary Reuters’ dispatch. Why?

The answer is that Ethiopia is fully within Washington’s orbit, acting as a reliable proxy enforcing US geopolitical interests in the resource-rich Horn of Africa. Zimbabwe, by contrast, pursues the opposite tact, implementing policies that seek to free itself from Western domination and to frustrate US imperial designs on the continent.

Zimbabwe indigenizes its agriculture and economy; Ethiopia intervenes militarily in Somalia at the behest of Washington, to restore a US-puppet government.

Weeks before Ethiopia invaded Somalia, US General John P. Abizaid flew to Addis Ababa to arrange for Zenawi to unleash the US-trained Ethiopian military on Somalia. Washington even went so far as to shelter Ethiopia, whose military relies on equipment made in north Korea, from penalty for violating UN-sanctions against north Korean arms sales. Ethiopia needed to import replacement parts from north Korea if the invasion was to go ahead without a hitch. Washington, which championed the sanctions, said “go ahead.” (9)

Numberless people are being manipulated by Western governments and media, their outrage harnessed to achieve geopolitical goals that have nothing

whatever to do with human rights and democracy, and everything to do with the question of who gets to control the oil spigot, mining concessions and vast tracts of fertile land.

Mamdani calls those caught up in the Save Darfur Campaign innocents. The same could be said of those caught up in the dump Mugabe campaign.

Notes

1. UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ estimate, cited in The Guardian, June 20, 2007.
2. Johns Hopkins study, published online by The Lancet, cited in The Guardian October 12, 2006.
3. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, cited in Workers World, February 15, 2007.
4. Interview with Mahmoud Mandani, Democracy Now! June 4, 2007.
5. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees (Guardian, June 20, 2007).
6. Quoted in the The London Times, cited in Party for Socialism and Liberation, July 3, 2007.
7. The Sunday Times, July 1, 2007.
8. The Globe and Mail, May 29, 2007.
9. The New York Times, April 8, 2007.

Ref: Global Research

Israel vira terra de exílio dos refugiados da África

Benjamin Barthe

É uma rua reservada para pedestres, imprensada entre as duas estações rodoviárias de Tel-Aviv. Agências de câmbio, lanchonetes que vendem "shawarma" (sanduíches típicos à base de carne), cabeleireiros especializados nos cortes de tipo "afro", e lojas de equipamentos de telefonia estão enfileirados numa extensão de 300 metros de asfalto em mau estado, numa rua coberta por embalagens gordurosas jogadas ali pelos usuários. Nesta área, não há nenhum surfista estilizado, e tampouco qualquer jovem executivo apressado. Invadido pela cacofonia das buzinas e pelos gases de escapamento dos microônibus, o bairro de Neve Sha'anan há muito foi desertado pela fauna antenada de Tel-Aviv. Aqui, vivem aqueles que foram deixados para trás pelo crescimento econômico israelense, os marginais de toda laia. E, num movimento que vem ocorrendo há um ano, também moram aqui milhares de refugiados, oriundos em sua maioria do Sudão e da Eritréia, os quais conferem a este lugar uma aura improvável de "Little Africa" (Pequena África).

Ismail Ahmed é um desses imigrantes recém-chegados. Este pai de família bonachão que aparenta ter 40 anos é um sobrevivente dos massacres do Darfur. Ele abriu no início de abril um pequeno cibercafé. Nele, as crianças sudanesas costumam reunir-se para intermináveis partidas de videogames on-line. À noite, Ismail dá aulas de inglês e de informática para os seus pais. À medida que ele vai sendo bem-sucedido, Ismail se prepara para renovar seu parque de computadores. Na vitrine do café, ele dependurou uma grinalda de bandeiras cunhadas com a estrela de Davi. Ele assim fez para expressar o seu profundo reconhecimento pelo seu país de adoção. As bandeirinhas são as testemunhas do percurso inesperado que ele efetuou no espaço de um ano.

Foi no dia 1º de julho de 2007 que Ismail pisou pela primeira vez o solo de Israel, junto com a sua mulher Halima e seus quatro filhos. "Faltavam quinze para as 11h da manhã, precisamente", diz. Após uma caminhada extenuante de sete horas pelo deserto do Sinai, a família havia conseguido enganar a vigilância das tropas egípcias e encontrar um caminho para transpor a cerca de arame-farpado que marca a fronteira com o Estado judaico. "Nós empreendemos a viagem a partir do Cairo, amontoados na traseira da picape do nosso passador beduíno; todos nós tínhamos um cobertor sobre a cabeça", conta Ismail. Após terem descansado durante 24 horas num acampamento a pouca distância da fronteira, e após terem enfrentado uma derradeira caminhada por uma trilha de cascalho, os refugiados avistam finalmente o alvo que tanto almejavam.

"Havia um barranco de cerca de 60 metros de comprimento, completamente a descoberto", prossegue. "Nós deixamos para trás todos os nossos apetrechos, até mesmo as garrafas de água. O guia nos disse que caso ouvíssemos disparos de armas, era preciso mesmo assim continuar correndo. Nós fizemos uma breve oração, eu peguei uma das crianças, coloquei-a sobre as minhas costas, segurei outra pela mão, e começamos a correr em disparada. Cinco minutos mais tarde, estávamos num caminho de areia, do outro lado da fronteira. Deliberadamente, nós fizemos questão de deixar as marcas dos nossos passos. Uma hora mais tarde, um jipe do exército israelense apareceu e os soldados nos deram carona. Estávamos a salvo".

Da mesma forma que Ismail e sua família, milhares de africanos se infiltraram em Israel nestes últimos meses. A antena do Alto-Comissariado para os refugiados em Tel-Aviv recenseou cerca de 4.000 eritreus e 3.500 sudaneses. Até então, a maioria dentre eles vivia no Cairo. Quase todos são opositores do regime de Asmara, que impõe com mão de ferro na Eritréia um socialismo autoritário à cubana; ou ainda, sobreviventes do sul do Sudão ou do Darfur, onde os janjawids, milicianos a cavalo a serviço da ditadura de Cartum, espalham o terror. As reportagens que o fotógrafo e jornalista Yonathan Weitzman realizou de agosto de 2006 a agosto de 2008 documentam a chegada caótica desses imigrantes a Israel, desde a perigosa passagem da fronteira até o momento em que eles são acolhidos pelas autoridades. Estas, por sua vez, não sabiam ao certo se elas deviam decretar sua detenção, sua recondução até a fronteira, ou fornecer-lhes uma autorização para residência temporária.

As soluções que elas estudaram para o problema foram mudando à medida que o afluxo de refugiados foi se tornando mais amplo. Na origem do fenômeno estava a repressão sangrenta de uma manifestação, pela polícia egípcia, no Cairo, em dezembro de 2005, que havia provocado a morte de 27 pessoas. De um dia para o outro, centenas de famílias tomaram a decisão de fugirem para Israel. Considerados como os súditos de um "país inimigo", os refugiados sudaneses foram inicialmente encarcerados.

Contudo, diante da população excessiva nas prisões, e frente à pressão da opinião pública, comovida pelos relatos de "genocídio" no Darfur, as autoridades locais foram obrigadas a libertar uma parte dos refugiados. Os felizes eleitos se aproveitaram então da situação para conseguirem emprego nos kibutz ou nos hotéis de Eilat, uma cidade de veraneio no mar Vermelho. Essa "sorte grande" acaba chegando aos ouvidos daqueles que haviam permanecido no Cairo que, por sua vez, empreendem a mesma viagem pelas trilhas do deserto do Sinai. Na esteira do movimento, congoleses, marfinenses e ganenses que procuram fugir da miséria do seu país, também resolvem arriscar sua sorte.

No verão de 2007, quando percebem que perderam todo controle sobre aquilo que um dos seus dirigentes qualifica de "tsunami humano", as autoridades de Israel resolveram tomar medidas mais drásticas. Uma construção anexa para a prisão de Ketziot, no meio do deserto do Neguev, foi construída às pressas. No mês de agosto, violando a Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre os refugiados da qual ele é signatário, o Estado judeu enviou de volta para o Egito, 48 refugiados que estavam pedindo asilo, em sua maioria foragidos do Darfur. A medida desencadeou na opinião uma indignação tão grande que ela incitou o governo a emitir um mês mais tarde autorizações para residência temporária, para 600 refugiados sudaneses.

Paralelamente, o primeiro-ministro Ehoud Olmert intimou o seu vizinho egípcio a não deixar passar mais ninguém pela sua fronteira. A mensagem foi bem recebida. Daqui para frente, as tropas que ocupam posições no Sinai passam a atirar em todo e qualquer indivíduo que tentar passar a fronteira. As autoridades do Cairo falam em 16 mortos desde o começo do ano, mas, segundo afirma Sigal Rozen, do Fórum para os direitos dos refugiados, "o número é de fato muito mais importante. Há cadáveres ao longo da fronteira que ninguém se habilita a recolher". Atualmente, o ritmo das chegadas diminuiu.

Da mesma forma que Ismail, os sudaneses de Israel se esforçam para construírem uma nova vida. Mas esta empreitada tem sido dificultada pelas hesitações do governo em relação à questão. "Ninguém aqui consegue compreender o que Israel pretende fazer ao certo", diz Mohyeddin Abdallah, o patrão de um pequeno café de Neve Sha'anan, que também é utilizado como hotel improvisado pelos sudaneses sem domicílio. "Até hoje, nenhuma decisão foi tomada a respeito do nosso estatuto". A esse respeito, o mais recente sinal que foi transmitido pelo governo não é nem um pouco tranqüilizador. O seu projeto de lei sobre "a prevenção das infiltrações" foi aprovado em primeira leitura pelos deputados da Knesset. Ele pune por meio da deportação ou com uma pena de cinco a sete anos de prisão toda pessoa que entrar ilegalmente em Israel. Daqui para frente, os que se habilitam a atravessar o deserto do Sinai sabem o que espera por eles.

Tradução: Jean-Yves de Neufville

Why then, for someone who holds the women in his life in such high regard, do I have such a hard time finding one who wants a relationship deeper than "just friends"? That phrase has been the scourge of my existance. If I had a nickel for everytime "just friends" has violated the peace of my life then by God I'd be challenging Bill Gates for his software company.

You know though, I could even handle that if not for the fact that 70% of the time after we become "friends" i didn't have to turn around and watch those that I love the most waste their time on selfish assholes, who treated them like dirt. Why, women, do you put youselves through this hell, or worse dulude yourselves that "No it's a great relationship really, he's just got a lot on his mind." No he just refuses to think about you, and here I am in the dark, perverted friend zone deluding myself that "one day she'll come to her senses." But she wont she'll spend countless hours crying over him when she could spend days laughing with me and being adored by me .

So this is what I want to know women of the world why? I know I'm not alone in this friend zone hell, and that makes this even more confusing. Granted I'm not the most attractive person ever, but certantly I'm not the ugliest, and Christ, surely on of my unseen hellmate collegues meet your appearance standards. So answer my question why put your self and us through hell, and if you know me personally them tell me what fault or sin I have attached to me that has banished me tho this particular circle of inferno.

I don't usually talk about politics here (in fact, in the history of BiblioAddict I don't think I've talked about it at all excepting that bit on Goodnight Bush), because... well, this is blog about books. I'm not about to start now either, don't worry. But this - this bit taken from "The Big Suck" by David J. Morris (via The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2007) touched me so that I just had to share because, well... speechless:

The following is a conversation the author has with a twenty-two year old Marine medic:

In Iraq you hear stories so brand-new, so off-the-charts weird and confounding and heartrending, so unbelievable that all you can do is stand there and say, “Wow.” I always made a point to take notes, look engaged, even when the story had drifted off into a cul-de-sac or the teller was waiting for the force of the memory to hit him again. I wanted them to know that someone was listening, that somebody was there to write it down, to ensure that it was remembered, if imperfectly...

“It was the damnedest thing,” he said. “In three tours over here, I’ve only had two guys die on me, but both of ‘em were real heartbreakers. One guy was from Columbine. He’d survived the big shoot-out by hiding under a desk in the library. He joined the Corps straight after that. Didn’t even go to his own graduation. He’d made it through the invasion of ‘03 and then the push through Fallujah. He’d done it. Been through the worst of the worst. And then the word came down that we had to back-clear some buildings in a sector vacated by a Marine unit from Hawaii that was rotating home. He walked into an old schoolhouse where there were some muj holdouts. He took a sniper round just under his helmet.”

He paused a moment to think about it. “I worked on another guy who’d been bugging the first sergeant all that day to let him call home on one of the battalion’s satellite phones because his son was supposed to be born soon. Later, when we got home, I spoke with his wife and we compared notes. I figured out that he’d been killed the same hour that his son was born. That was some dirty math.” ...

“Wow,” I said.

And then there was this from "Dafur Diaries: Stories of Survival" (also via TBANR).

The author is talking with a fifteen year old resistance fighter in the Dafur region of Sudan:

"Why did you come to Dafur from N'Djamena?" Adam asked.

"To be in the movement. The Sudan Liberation Army. I've been a soldier for two years. I came here from N'Djamena because of injustice. I want human rights only. I want to liberate Sudan."..

He told us more about his family, whom he had left in N'Djamena. "What matters most to me are my parents and brother and sister. I'm the oldest."

"We asked if he wanted to film a message for us to take back to his family when we returned to the capital.

He smiled broadly. "Yes! Tell them hello, how are they doing? How are they living their life? My father, he is sick, and I want him to recover from his illness."

"And to your brother and sister?" Adam asked.

Fadi thought for a moment and then delivered his message: "Their future is to continue to study, to be educated, and to be a teacher or director, and president too."

"Do you have anything to say to kids in America, the same age as you?"

"Yeah. Students, go to school. Study." Fadi flashed a big grin. "Greetings from Sudan Liberation Army."

A child soldier telling kids to stay in school. This, after I've read a short story by Nam Le featuring some gruesome details on the massacre at My Lai. It seems as if today's reading material is determined to break my heart.

(click image to enlarge)

First, under Politics… The headline reads, “Pastor snags Obama, McCain"

Oh, so a Pastor talked trash about both candidates? Why should we care? Well, this is CNN trying to make a big deal out of nothing! As it turns out – a famous Pastor with a bad goatee and a purple tie basically convinced McCain and Obama to have a “faith speech” at a church. That is it. They agreed to talk to a guy! This is a news article apparently?

Next, is “Whatever Happened to the family comedy?”

Umm… the market dictates. I think Jerry Seinfeld summed it up best, “There is no such thing as Fun for the Whole Family – because some one in the family would always rather be doing something else.” I missed the punch-line, but … there aren’t any “family” comedies because no one watches TV as a family anymore, nor does anyone want to. We have specialization and multi-television households. Dad and bigger brother don’t want to watch some rubbish like “Leave it to Beaver.” The only reason they watched that trash in the first place was because there were like 2 channels in the 1950s. Your nighttime entertainment options were “Leave it to Beaver” or praying in a dark closet that the Russians wouldn’t drop the bomb. And, watching TV together as a family isn’t quality “family time.” The only connection is that you are staring at the same flickering box.

Next, Former-Sect leader Jeffs charged with child sex assault …

I think we all saw this one coming from a couple miles away. But, here is my question – he was a polygamist, but why is polygamy illegal in the United States? Ignoring the whole child-rapey thingy (which gives it a black eye no doubt) why is it illegal? What if three (or more) consenting adults see polygamy as their way of happiness? Why have laws against people trying to obtain happiness through multiple marriages as long as all parties are informed of the existing marriages?

Finally, The United States might be hitting a recession, but it appears as if the trash the general populous cares about is staying the same. Look at the next three red-boxed CNN headlines.

“Avoid those awkward cell-phone moments” – Would you ever see this in Dafur newspapers?
“Well-meaning meddlers – how to deal with them” – Is this really an issue?
“Busy Moms: Staying afloat.” – Yes, yes, yes. We do have problems in America.

]]> http://autoego.wordpress.com/?p=720 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:08:31 +0000 AUTOEGO http://autoego.fr.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/ich-bin-schwer-beeindruckt/

There was a genocide in Sudan, it was carried out by a British occupation force in the 1890s but the current Sudanese civil war is just that - a civil war - it's not a genocide. And the civil war was instigated by the Fur, who have been armed supported and encouraged by Britain and America all the way. Britain has always had an interest in it's former colony, especially since the discovery of oil, and it's no secret that America and Israel are also keen to see the Sudan partitioned into states, so Israel and Ethiopia can dominate the Upper Nile region.  The Arab League and the African Union have all blamed the Fur for the failure in the peace deals, Britain and America have encouraged them to reject the 2005 north-south peace agreement, to reignite the conflict and give the UN (America) a pretext to act. But when it became clear that Russia and China would use their vetoes at the Security Council, America found a new fondness for the ICC, which it has still refused to sign up to. 

So Moreno-Ocampo, who has already proved his lack of integrity by refusing to prosecute war criminals like George Bush, Tony Blair, and Ehud Olmert, and withholding evidence helpful to the defence in the Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga prosecution, has sought the indictment of President al-Bashir on entirely bogus grounds. No one expects this trial to go ahead, it's clearly an attempt once again to sabotage any peace deal in Sudan.  

The African Union chairman responded by saying "If al-Bashir is indicted and taken, there will be a power vacuum in Sudan and that risks military coups and widespread anarchy reminiscent of what is happening in Iraq," and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference issued a statement warning the indictment, "could seriously threaten the fragile peace in Darfur" but that's what Britain, America and Israel want.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7503428.stm

Humanitarian group Refugees International said in a report last year that rape was "an integral part of the pattern of violence that the government of Sudan is inflicting upon the targeted ethnic groups in Darfur."'

NICE.

"Some relief workers say that almost every woman living in aid camps has been raped or become a victim of gender-based violence. Many teenagers, while out running errands such as collecting firewood, are raped multiple times by militiamen, the workers say. Video Watch women face dangers in Darfur »

With U.N. officials calling for more female officers to better educate women against rape and women saying they won't feel safe until the under-equipped and undermanned United Nations force is strong enough to protect them, the situation shows little sign of improving."

More on CNN