Palestinian farmers from the West Bank village of Gith claimed on Monday that Jews from the settlement of Havat Gilad had cut down at least 20 of their olive trees.

there was a hopeful headline today that contained a story that was a bit dated, "israel may have become a liability for the u.s." but it contains some contextual matter worth remembering:

The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates "depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money." And because Jewish voters have high turnout rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.

Israel is also by far the biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, receiving 3 billion dollars annually from the foreign budget. This excludes loan agreements and other military packages from different budgets which come to another few billion dollars annually.

And while other recipients of U.S. foreign aid have to account for how the money is spent, Israel does not. Some of the money goes into settlement building in the West Bank, even if this is against U.S. policy.

unfortunately, it would seem that the pro-israel obama and mccain candidates are far from a place where they would halt aid to the zionist state or even limit it. it would be nice if the recent conflict in akka could serve as a reminder to obama about what jim crow looks like. it would be nice if it could be an occasion for him to look into the history of akka's ethnic cleansing. to see those who survived living in palestinian refugee camps in lebanon. or just look at those palestinians forced from their homes yet again:

"Since the riots broke out we've been moving from house to house, but how much longer can these families accommodate us?," said La'a Ramal, whose home was damaged during the riots.

Ramal told Ynet that her house had been torched three times in recent years, adding that some of her Arab neighbors decided to leave the neighborhood in light of the ongoing harassment at the hands of the Jewish residents.

yet again palestinians are forced to flee. yet again the world ignores this. yet again jews continue to scream "never again." but of course this only means jewish victims. sometimes it means african victims--if they have an easy way of blaming arabs and muslims for the problem (i.e., save darfur). but fighting islamophobia does not seem to be a priority for the world, especially for americans. though one new website featured on angry arab's website yesterday called "smearcasters" charts those most racist islamophobic media figures. and yet islamophobia and arabphobia seems to be fueling the mccain campaign. it's unbelievable to watch some of these clips on the news. particularly offensive was a scene from the campaign trail when some stupid american white woman said that she doesn't trust obama, "he's not... he's not... he's an arab." mccain took the microphone from her and simply responded, "no ma'am he's not." and herein lines the problem that reveals mccain's racism as well as his fan's: had he said: "no ma'am, he's not, but even if he were there would be no reason to fear him, there would be nothing wrong with that." something! anything! you know, it sounds remarkably like when obama tries to negate rumors about whether or not he's muslim. rather than saying, "no i'm not, but there is nothing wrong with being muslim" or something to that effect, he flat out denies it. both of these candidates in their responses then further the islamophobia and arabphobia by distancing themselves from arabs and muslims and participating in the demonization of them. how would people respond if they thought some candidate was jewish, but wasn't sure? can you imagine candidates responding in the same way? they'd have the zion-nazis all over them in a flash!

i'm thinking america needs a structural adjustment. first, they need a structural adjustment to slap them out of this racist stupor that leads stupid white people to be allowed to have thoughts as in this clip from al jazeera today:

next they need a structural adjustment the likes of which the global south has endured under the u.s. malicious, watchful eye. reading through articles and watching the news about the international monetary fund's plan yesterday to rescue the wealthiest countries (how's that for irony?) i couldn't help but wonder how the u.s. would do under such circumstances. what i'm wondering is this: when the imf usually "rescues" countries they force them into a system of structural adjustment. so why not put the g-7 countries on a similar plan? for decades the u.s. and other g-7 countries have been forcing structural adjustment programs on the global south with devastating consequences:

SAPs [structural adjustment programs] often succeed in achieving specific objectives such as privatizing state enterprises, reducing inflation, and decreasing budget deficits. However, the GDP growth of countries undergoing structural adjustment is routinely limited to a few sectors, most typically raw materials extraction or goods produced with cheap labor. Thus, even when a SAP-driven economy grows, such growth is generally environmentally unsustainable and fails to generate significant employment or increase incomes, particularly at a rate sufficient to keep up with population growth and compensate for SAP-induced layoffs.

Reforms aimed at opening countries to foreign trade and investment may result in increased exports and greater access to capital, but they also flood countries with imported luxury goods and undermine local industry, both of which serve to constrict local buying power. SAPs benefit a narrow stratum of the private sector—mostly those involved in export production and trade brokering. Those involved in these growth sectors are usually well-connected elites and transnational corporations.

Layoffs of government workers, wage constraints, higher interest rates, reduced government spending, and the shutdown of domestic industries all contribute to the shrinking of the domestic market. The weak state of the domestic market exacerbates deteriorating socioeconomic conditions. Although there may be a new dynamism in certain sectors, social and economic insecurity deepens for most people in countries subjected to SAPs. The result can be increasing political instability, including anti-government protests and riots over price increases.

why does such a prospect give me hope? the prospect of anti-government protests and riots that might change the entire system and actually put someone who's about social change (hint: cynthia mckinney and rosa clemente).

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Ali Mohamed Ali Abdel-Rahman - known as Ali Kushayb - in February last year. Sudanese Justice Minister Abdel Basit Sabderat said an investigation into alleged crimes committed by Ali Kushayb was now drawing to an end.

The ICC chief prosecutor also accuses Sudan's president of crimes in Darfur. The government is lobbying hard for the UN Security Council to delay an ICC investigation into whether President Omar al-Bashir should be charged with war crimes.

The BBC's Amber Henshaw in the capital, Khartoum, says Sudan has refused to co-operate with the ICC case and is insisting on conducting its own investigations into crimes in Darfur.

An arrest warrant for government minister Ahmed Haroun was issued at the same time as that for Ali Kushayb - the minister has not been arrested.

A new chief prosecutor was appointed in August to investigate crimes committed in the Darfur region during the five-year conflict.

Legal experts say that Sudanese criminal law does not include charges of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity although the military law was revised last year.

The government has always denied reports that it had backed the Janjaweed militias accused of widespread atrocities against civilians in Darfur.

More than two million people have been forced from their homes and an estimated 300,000 have died since black African groups took up arms in 2003, complaining of discrimination by the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum

SOURCED FROM BBC

Read on at the link.
Millennium Development Grotesquery by Eric Reeves via The New Republic

Originally uploaded by Nick Anderson

This is one of the 800+ images posted to the Artists Against Corruption Group on Flickr as part of our first photography based project.

From the images posted we will select a collection for an exhibition and book. The aim will be to put a human face on the abstract concept of corruption. Also, to show the scale of the problem, the vast range of consequences, and its connection with poverty in particular.

Professional & Amateur photographers are invited to participate. If their images are then selected for use in the exhibition we will first seek written permission.

The image shown is of a Ugandan boy that was a victim of the atrocities carries out by the Lords Resistance Army lead by Joseph Kony who I have previously profiled on this blog.

Kony and the LRA are still active. Recent reports say he has set up six new bases in northern DR Congo and is running diamond mines in the Central African Republic. The LRA are notorious for abducting children and mutilating victims.

In Sudan the LRA were hired and supported by the Sudanese Government of Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir who is also responsible for the Darfur crisis today.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Kony and other LRA members. There are 33 charges, 12 counts are crimes against humanity, which include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and rape. There are another 21 counts of war crimes which include murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population, pillaging, inducing rape, and forced enlisting of children into the rebel ranks.

Photo by Nick Anderson
Click the link for a profile of Joseph Kony

Darfur Now is available at Amazon for $4.99. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• Sand and Sorrow
• The Devil Came On Horseback
• The 11th Hour
• God Grew Tired of Us
• Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond

Tilford is the quintessential English village. Three miles south of Farnham, it has a triangular village green where cricket is played in the summer. Surrounding the green are the pub, the church, the church school, an ancient oak where, reputedly, King Charles II once hid, the meandering River Wey and Tilford Institute, a striking black and white timbered building by Lutyens, which was the venue for last night's concert.

Tilford was also my home for nine years and it was a pleasure to meet many old friends at the concert, both in the audience and among the performers. Once of the first people I ran into was my father's lovely ex-wife whom I haven't seen for many months. Introducing her to my dance partner, her eyes lit up and she asked what kind of dance. It turns out that she too has started to learn to jive and we have arranged to meet and dance together on Monday. I am looking forward to that very much. She is also learning Argentinian Tango and she demonstrated the intimate and sexy posture required. Mmm. I had already thought it was something I must try. Now I am convinced.

Then the incredibly varied evening started with Djembe drummers. After a lengthy set of driving rhythms with some subtle syncopation, they involved the audience, having handed out a djembe to every audience member. The entire audience enthusiastically banged away and very quickly came together to make sounds that were identifiably musical.

An insane attempt to feed 100 people in 20 minutes with freshly cooked food from a van in the car park was followed by a sublime performance of lieder by a young student from Frensham Heights. For me, her pure voice and delightful choice of music and (other ego-mad performers please note) sensibly short programme, was the musical highlight of the evening. Her closing piece, a Massenet song, was exquisite.

Will, a young man with a guitar and a Dylanesque voice, was next. He was followed by a three-man group on vocals and guitar, bass and violin, fronted by my friend Malcolm (see blog passim). Having organised the event in previous years, Malcolm knows that three songs is enough for any set and got off the stage while we still loved him. Phil, the violinist, stayed and was joined by a new guitarist and bassist and a pedal guitarist for a set of country songs. The kids - and I - were fascinated watching the pedal guitar being played but the novelty could not sustain us through the "oh my God, will it never end?" experience of mournful country music. At the end of each song I applauded politely and with what I hoped was a persuasive air of finality, but no, they had another one to play. And another. And...

I guess stage managing the evening must be a remarkable challenge. The artists have given their time voluntarily for the cause and naturally each one knows the audience have really come just to see them. But please folks, three songs really is enough. If the audience go wild for you, add a fourth as encore, and then piss off.

A doctor then got up to tell us about her experiences in a year with Medicines Sans Frontieres in Africa, fighting malaria and malnutrition.

The final two artists we stayed for were both female soloists. The first a New Zealand guitarist and singer-songwriter who lost her left hand and half her lower arm in a car accident four years ago and has taught herself to play again. She made haunting and beautiful music. The final singer came and sat, lounge-style, on the front of the stage and sang us lounge-style old classics. Her rich contralto was a pleasure but once again she kept singing longer than the by now exhausted audience could take.

It was 11pm and the concert was four hours in when my friend Roland Liiv (sic) sat on the edge of the stage to tell us a story. I would have loved to hear it but the kids were falling asleep and, truth be told, so was I. So we sidled out.

Omar al-Bashir denied allegations that militias backed by his government engaged in a campaign of rape and murder in Darfur, telling Channel 4 News that rape was alien to the area's culture.

"It's not in the culture of the Darfurians. The Darfurian society does not have rape. It's not in the tradition," he said through a translator. He said that women making the rape allegations "are under the influence of the rebels and some are even relatives of the rebels. That's why they make these claims."

Wow, now even those from countries where rape is unquestionably used as an act of war are playing the blame the victim game.

I also think if women were at the helm of the solution to this debacle it would be done.

I bet if men were being raped routinely as an act of war men all over the world would cringe. They would act with an expediency we have never seen.

Let's Review

Rape is a way of life for Darfur's women

Tears of the Desert: A Memoir of Survival in Darfur
---
In Darfur Wood-gathering Women Walk Through a Minefield of Rape

---

Darfur: No Redress for Rape

---

Nicholas Kristof on the Rape of Darfur
---

Darfur families pledge to care for rape babies

---

Curse of the Janjaweed

--

Court in Darfur Convicts Two Government Soldiers of Child Rape

----

Rape in Darfur

---

Five years on, Darfur rape widespread-Rights Watch

---

Rape and sexual violence ongoing in Darfur, Sudan

---
---

Women for Women

Women Trust

UNIFEM

International Rescue Committee

Sounds familiar, does it not?

The same drum of war that beat to go to Iraq has been picked up, dusted off and finely tuned. Only this time it is in the hands of the left - Hollywood actors, Olympic-grade athletes and spoiled college hippies. In other words, it is in the hands of the very same people who adamantly stood up against the war with Iraq. The war, the one the administration said was accomplished five years ago, still wages today, taking the lives of sons, fathers and friends.

Now, many in the anti-war left want us to pack our bags from Baghdad and come home. That is a great idea, but they want us to make a stop on the way home and drop off some luggage, maybe a bomb or two. Save the people in Darfur. This is somehow different than saving Iraqis, even though President Bush made the same argument:

They're being oppressed.

They're being tortured!

This is the same tried and true argument we were given to invade Iraq, yet the anti-war people turn around and demand military intervention in Darfur. If the Iraq war has accomplished anything thus far, it should be that we need to keep our noses out of a sovereign nation's business unless it is a direct threat to our country.

What is happening in Darfur is awful, but we are not the world's police. It is not our job to meddle in the affairs of other countries. If we did intervene in Darfur, chances are it would end up much like Iraq - a muddled quagmire. The country could see an influx of terrorists and "insurgents." How long would it take for a Republican to stand up and tell Hollywood: "We were lied to about the war in Darfur. We need a time table to get our people out of there"?

The hypocrisy from these liberal internationalists is flooring.

It seems the reason so many have differing views between Iraq and Darfur is because we have a Republican president. Only "bad" wars happen under Republicans. "Good" wars happen if a Democrat is behind them. I mean, just look at the Vietnam War, a war Democrats got us into and less than a decade later were screaming to get us out of, after wasting more than 50,000 American lives and tens of thousands of civilian lives in the process.

Democrats mostly point to World War II as a "good" war. Too bad Franklin Roosevelt did everything he could to force Hitler to attack us. When he would not, he waited for Hitler's ally to attack and still went after Germany, barely bothering with the nation that attacked Pearl Harbor. That was a "good" war because it prevented the Holocaust, right?

Wrong.

Victims of the Holocaust still numbered in the millions, and some people argue the Nazis would not have slaughtered as many if America had not intervened.

While it is a crime against humanity and it is a tragedy, America should not always be the country to shed blood or force democracy upon a nation that might not be able to handle it. It's a sad truth, but it might still be the truth. So, let's allow the United Nations to do what they were created to do and send other nations' forces to restore peace to the region. Leave our boys out of it, for once.

El Genina: In the first century AD John wrote what he saw in his Apocalypse, which is also translated Revelation. He writes, in the 6th chapter and 8th verse, "And I looked, and behold, a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death; and Hell followed with him." Last week in Darfur in one of the hundreds of dusty IDP camps a man in a plastic tent stated this to us, "The Devils on Horseback came and burned our village, raped our women, and killed us all." These horsemen he was speaking about are the Janjaweed, which translated means, "Devils on Horseback". Since 2003 the Janjaweed, who are apart of and supported by the Khartoum government, have carried out a campaign of terror on the people of Darfur. For the last two years all official numbers, according to the UN has stayed at 70,000 dead with 2,000,000 displaced from their homes; but in a recent statement a UN official said there were as many as 180,000 dead and even more likely the number was five times as high as the initial 70,000 figure making it over 350,000 dead (*In 2008 estimates place this figure at over 400,000 dead and counting.)

When we arrived in Darfur the Janjaweed were attacking NGO workers in the region, which forced, two days earlier, an evacuation of all Aid workers out of the region except El Genina. The situation was tense and the motivation of the Janjaweed was obvious—get rid of the aid workers, AU (African Union) and UN, and then the genocide can continue without restrictions. We use the word "genocide", but the UN official position is that the Darfur crisis is only "Crimes against humanity" and not "genocide". If they were to call it genocide they would be forced to act militarily, something neither they nor the AU is willing to due. So, in a haunting similarity Darfur is becoming like Rwanda '94. Thousands of people continue to die and we will read about it in Time and Newsweek and we will wonder, "Why didn’t anyone help?”

In the IDP camps the Darfurans told us their stories and when asked why they thought this was happening to them they replied, “Because we are black. The Arabs who are all Janjaweed said they will kill all blacks in Darfur and rape our women to get ride of the black." We then asked, "But you are Muslim and they are Muslim doesn't that make you brothers?"
"No!" came the response with convicted anger, "They say because we are not Arab we are not truly Muslim."

Days later we traveled on helicopter missions with the AU to the border regions and to villages that had been a recent flash point of Janjaweed attacks. On one such mission we came face to face with a Janjaweed member. He dawned a green military uniform of North Sudan and brandished a whip in his hand. When asked about the insecurity in the area he pointed to the crowd in a harsh motion and said to the crowd of Darfurans around him, "Let anyone raise his hand if there is insecurity in this village." Out of fear everyone ducked his or her heads. There are many more things to speak about the Darfur crisis, but what is the conclusion for us who believe in Christ Jesus?

Well again in Revelation 19:11 it speaks of another horseman: "And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True: and in righteousness He judges and wages war." This horseman is Christ Jesus at His second coming. The Darfurans have been slaughtered by an evil upon a horse, and may they now know that they have a vindicator that will come upon a horse; one that is Faithful and True and who will fight the enemy—the Devil.

But how will they know about the one who is called Faithful and True without a preacher? Blessed are the feet of him who brings the Good News. May you read this and realize the Lord has use of you to speak to all mankind, especially those who have never heard the message of he who is named Faithful and True.  Amen.

Highlights from Senator Obama

We may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake...

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.

Highlights from Senator McCain

The United States of America, Tom, is the greatest force for good, as I said.  And we must do whatever we can to prevent genocide, whatever we can to prevent these terrible calamities that we have said never again.

... you have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you're sending America's most precious asset, American blood, into harm's way.

And I may have to make those tough decisions. But I won't take them lightly. And I understand that we have to say never again to a Holocaust and never again to Rwanda. But we had also better be darn sure we don't leave and make the situation worse, thereby exacerbating our reputation and our ability to address crises in other parts of the world.

-----

Watch the entire debate on CNN.

Read the debate transcript.

 A região encontra-se em situação de alerta, pois abriga na atualidade conflitos de grandes proporções e impactos na estabilidade e segurança não só da região como de todo o continente. As condições de vida das populações envolvidas cada vez mais deterioradas e a dificuldade de ação da comunidade internacional para aliviar e remediar sofrimentos humanos torna esta parte do continente alvo especial de atenção e cuidados.

"Quando nós tentávamos escapar, eles matavam mais crianças.Eles estupravam as mulheres; Eu vi muitos casos da Janjawid (milícia rebelde) estuprando mulheres e crianças.Eles ficam alegres quando estupram.Eles cantam quando nos estupram e falam para nós que somos apenas escravas  e que eles podem fazer o que quiserem"-A. idade 37, de Mukjar (Anistia Internacional)

Sudão

Com mais de 6 milhões de pessoas deslocadas pelos conflitos inter-étnicos no país, principalmente na região de Darfur, a escala da violência não só produziu campos de refugiados, como impediu acesso de organizações internacionais e humanitárias na região, aumentando as crises de desabastecimento alimentar e causando novas migrações. Segundo estimativas, aproximadamente 200 mil pessoas já morreram assassinadas em conseqüência de doenças em campos de refugiados ou de fome.  O número de campos de refugiados aumenta e as condições de vida permanecem extremamente precárias nestes locais, dada a grande dificuldade de acesso de organizações prestadoras de serviços humanitários.  A escalada da violência no país só faz impedir a chegada de auxílio internacional aos refugiados o que torna a situação cada vez mais difícil. As migrações humanas são deslocas continuamente de Darfur e alocam-se na parte oriental do Chade, país vizinho[1].  

O Sudão possui maioria de sua população de origem árabe, enquanto em Darfur (região semi-árida situada no Oeste do país) concentra-se uma população de origem centro-africana, sobretudo nômades de diversas etnias. Os conflitos começaram em 2003 quando grupos rebeldes atacaram postos governamentais para protestar contra a negligência do governo para com a região. Entretanto, tensões já são antigas e rivalidades existem dadas às disputas territoriais e por direito de pastagem entre árabes, em sua maioria, nômades e fazendeiros dos grupos étnicos de Fur, Massaleet e Zagawa.

Acordos tripartites entre o ACNUR, o governo do sudoeste sudanês e de países de asilo vizinhos estabelecidos em 2005, estabeleceram uma estrutura jurídica favorável ao retorno e repatriação de 10 mil refugiados. Contudo, desafios ainda são grandes especificamente na região de Darfur, aonde 13 mil voluntários oriundos de 84 Organizações Não Governamentais, da Cruz Vermelha e do Crescente Vermelho; além de 13 agências das Nações Unidas tentam cobrir as necessidades básicas de 3,6 milhões de pessoas in Darfur, incluindo 1,8 milhões de pessoas internamente deslocadas. 

 

"Segurança é fundamental para possibilitar refugiados e outras pessoas deslocadas a retornarem para suas casas no sul do Sudão.Contudo, houve apenas um limitado progresso no desarmamento e os violentos desacordos inter-tribais deixaram centenas de mortos em 2007."(Human Rights Watch 2008 Report)

[1] Dados retirados de reportagem de revista americana SOCIAL SCIENCE: Death in Darfur

Hagan and Palloni, Science 15 September 2006: 1578-1579, DOI: 10.1126/science.1127397. Ver carta comentando este artigo em:  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/313/5793/1578#5489 (texto em inglês)

IMAGEM: Sul do Sudão.Escola de Meninos Palotaka.Ataque aérea repentino.A área é sistematicamente bombardeada pelo Governo Sudanês. Moses Chol (10): "Quando eu crescer quero ser um professor.Não quero ser soldado.Quando nos bombardeiam eu sinto medo mas não quero lutar, somos crianças ainda."CRISPIN HUGHES PHOTOGRAPHY  

I don’t rely too much on polls, but it seems that McCain had to knock Obama out in this one just to regain an even balance. I did think Obama focused on the issues and gave specific examples of his policies, but I honestly wasn’t extremely impressed by either candidate (check out their report cards).  I felt as if the debate evolved into a bickering match over records, policies, and of course, character. We had McCain talking about the “candies and goodies” used to entice Senators such as "that one" (Obama) into voting for certain bills, and then we had Obama talking about how McCain has been “cheerleading” Bush through the war (although I have to admit, I did laugh on that last one). There seemed to be too much of a back and forth, with each pointing out the hypocritical voting records of the other - I ended up not knowing what was the truth and what was a crock of crap.

Not to mention the snide comments about time constraints. Yes, Obama talked a lot, so much so that he often went over the time limit. Honestly, I know there are time limits imposed for a reason, and the campaigns previously agree to them in the name of fairness. But at the same time, is it really necessary to keep to the 90 minute time frame? This is the presidential election for Christ’s sake, and I would hope that the candidates have enough to say to make the debate longer than a feature film. I like Obama as a debater for firmly yet politely emphasizing his stance instead of being shut up and sat down by a clock. McCain seemed as if he was brown nosing not only the moderator but also the audience: “I am going to stop, and you didn’t even have to wait,” McCain told moderator Tom Brokaw at one point. Good job, Johnny, you showed us Americans that you can follow the same rules they institute into beauty pageants…hmm, Sarah Palin has taught you a lot.

Still, there were a lot of important points brought up despite the childish bickering. One aspect of the debate that I found particularly interesting was the discussion of the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. One audience member at the town hall asked a question about whether or not the U.S. should go into countries neighboring Iraq, which was a tactic considered during the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose not to enter Cambodia or Laos, and in fact a communist regime came to power in the state of “Pathet Lao.” The debate of today mainly involves Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries that Obama believes we should be focusing on. While McCain argues that Obama is “telegraphing his punches” on live television (saying the Democratic candidate is broadcasting his plans to “attack Pakistan”), the former military hero quotes one of his own “heroes” when he declares his foreign policy strategy: “speak softly but carry a big stick” (Teddy Roosevelt, by the way). Now, I do not know much abut military strategy or foreign policy, but I would think that talking would be a bit more important. Both candidates emphasize that they need to gain support of Pakistan’s people, just as the U.S. government had unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the South Vietnamese. Still, McCain wants to be diplomatic in a way that can hide America’s true motives; we have to be tough and carry that big stick, right? On the other hand, Obama says that America needs to “stop coddling” Pakistan. He did not mean we should jump in there and attack them (as if we never do that...), but it was his way of letting them know where America stands. Pakistan might be angry, but they ain’t gonna hear us if we speak too softly, and darn tootin’ right they aren’t gonna like us too much if we act nice and then whip out our big sticks (come on, McCain, save that for Cindy).

There were sharp disagreements not only about the war in Iraq, but also about America’s position in the world. Not only do most people agree that Obama won the debate, but they also believe that he presented a stronger foreign policy stance than his opponent.  McCain emphasized our status as the shining light of the free world, noting that our country is obliged to at least try to intervene in world struggles. Obama, on the other hand, said that while it is a moral duty to intervene in cases of genocide, there are other situations (I am assuming he means politically) in which the U.S. has to determine if, in fact, their presence will benefit anyone or bring about any sort of resolution. This seems like a legitimate enough foreign policy for me, and it probably would not have gotten us into Iraq in the first place. Sure, I want genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur to end, but I don’t think the U.S. should go around policing governments that we do not approve of, like Iraq. Like Obama said, we can not do it all. There is always going to be oppression and struggle in the world, but we can not intervene everywhere. Especially during this economic crisis, Americans should be focusing first and foremost on our country. Even McCain said that in order to have a strong military, you need to have a strong economy as a foundation. Well, maybe now is a good time to focus on the root of the problem instead of spending billions of dollars in a country where we really do not seem to be getting anywhere.

There is so much more I could talk about (economic and energy policies in particular) but what did everyone else think of the debate?

Photo Credits

Alas, Africa is siding with the one partner who owes it nothing and negating the partner who is missing. I need not tell you of the exploitation of Africa, and I need not inform you of the neglect with which the African continent has had to live with for so long. What is interesting is how the rise of China is affecting the geopolitical game.

So, who are these sudanennes...sudanians or correctly put; Sudanese people? What I need people to understand is that to acquire an opinion is easy, forming one of your own is quite hard. The introductory question of this paragraph was put facetiously to highlight the many times people have discussed this topic without really knowing who it affects, thus feeding in to their acquired opinion. For some time now there has been a struggle between the north and south of Sudan. Why? Well, the North-South struggle was actually religiously fuelled and to some extent between different shades of brown. Basically, large parts of the south consists of people who are pagans and/or have other religious views than Islamic.

About 65% (instead of questioning me, read a book / Google your facts and then get back to me) of the Sudanese people are Sunni-Muslims. So how is this relevant to the current “genocide” in Darfur? The people of Darfur are descendants to a Muslim kingdom and are fiercly devout. This notion in western public media that the fundamentalist regime in Khartoum is killing people in Darfur because they have different religious views is wrong.

Sudan is a Muslim country and therefore politics and religion are not mutually exclusive. Some few years ago, the regime in Khartoum backed a militia, the Janjaweed. You may or may not have heard of Hassan al-Turabi. In essence, he is what we call a well educated fundamentalist, an EDUFU if you will ( I wonder if people will start using that word..). For a very long time now, he has been admired by devout rebel Muslims seeking to overthrow the government. Al-Turabi was in house arrest but still able to guide people within the Bashir regime and other Al-Turabi afflicted groups seeking refuge in Darfur (devout Muslim region...fundamentalists trying to find a place to hide...using Islam as a common ground...are the wheels turning for you yet?). Moving further along, the Bashir lead regime feared a coup d’état and acted.

So, the Janjaweed engaged the Turabi fractions in Darfur (mainly the Justice and Equality movement). This is where the story becomes interesting. The Janjaweed largely consists of men from nomadic tribes. It is in this struggle the Janjaweed saw an opportunity too further their own claims to land (the ability to roam free without ownership boundaries) which they thought the sedentary people of Darfur had taken. A struggle over land and regional power had ensued, not a government sponsored genocide.

Now, that is just the internal struggle in Sudan. To get a broader sense as to WHY western media has failed to give you and many of my neighbouring countries a nuanced picture of this ordeal, one must recognise the geopolitical components and their new adversary China.

In 2004, the US Secretary of State Mr Powell declared genocide in Sudan. By labelling the atrocities in Darfur as genocide he alienated the efforts made by the regime in Khartoum and gained much needed public opinion to go after what the Chinese were already getting - Oil.
You might ask why a diplomatic approach wasn’t taken to peruse the oil. Well, Bashir wanted no western countries in Sudan. Big NO-NO!. Not allowing western countries to operate in Sudan infuriated the global community (read: western hemisphere) thus, as a first step, Colin Powell labelled it genocide. To his dismay, he gained some public support even discussing the deployment of American troops, but not enough to go in and remove the Anti-Western regime in Khartoum.

Three years later, a struggle between al-Turabi and Bashir was still ongoing in Darfur and the Janjaweed and sedentary people were still fighting. Furthermore the Chinese were still making serious investments in Sudan and earning very, very much. Sudan had been torn apart by the struggle in Darfur, peace negotiations with the south and Khartoum were strained. Ah ha! thought the western community and Mr. Ocampo was invited to come play. Long story short; he, for the first time in the history of the ICC ,tried to indict a sitting president (Bashir). Ocampo claimed that Bashir was at fault for the ongoing killings in Darfur and that Bashir was in fact the one orchestrating everything.

Yet again the attempt to usurp the Khartoum regime had failed. In fact it more than failed, it backlashed. When he went out and accused President Bashir, the country gathered around Bashir much like the American people once gathered around Bush. Ocampo did what he least expected, he unified Sudan. Years of power struggle were subdued. WHY? Because Bashir was now able to say to the Sudanese people: “Look at what they are trying to do!”. He was able to divert focus. Moreover, Ocampo unified Africa. All major leaders in Africa supported Bashir and wanted him in power. They did so, fully knowing that if Bashir would be taken from power - they were next.

In an effort to come to a close, the geopolitical game is changing as China is investing more and more in Africa and giving back very much. Africa is taking a chance with the Chinese and by doing so, they are incurring the wrath of their former master. The overly exaggerated attention this situation has received is merely because Sudan is a rich country and it has a regime which doesn’t want to share it with the west.

Think of how much money that is flowing from the west to the east. Africa might not have to rely on the west in the coming decades - who are we going to exploit then?

Genocide? No.
People fighting over power? Yes.

// Probity dot H

Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their "doctrine" would be "in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security," such as "the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998," or Rwanda or Somalia.

In such cases, answered Obama, "we have moral issues at stake." Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

L'hypocrite supreme last year:

"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep US forces there," the AP reported on July 20, 2007 ...

Translation: Genocide is awful, unless it's happening to Iraqis,  in which case "Who cares?"  Got it?

What an awful human being!  As Jacoby asks, "What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide - genocide - can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?"  James 3:14 states that "But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth."  Proverbs 19:5 warns "A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape."  Something tells me that The One isn't sweating it, and he is a fool for it.

In the leaders' debate for the last federal election, none of the leaders of any of the four major parties even mentioned the word "Darfur." Nor did any member of the media put a question about Darfur to any of the leaders.

Most Canadians would join me in lamenting the tragedy unfolding, yet the government's throne speech made no mention of this ongoing atrocity. This is especially disturbing given Canada's role as the principal architect of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, which mandates international collective action to protect the Darfuri population from genocide ...

If Canada is to be an international leader in combating the killing fields in Sudan, questions must be put -- and answered -- on Darfur, the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century. There is much that can be done, and much that needs to be done.

He goes on to suggest a "Darfur Summit", which would bring together people from the Eurpoean and African Unions, the UN and other government partnerships to decide on action, leadership and consequences for those responsible.

He was talking about how our military is overexerted and our allies don't necessarily want to help us. These two things in concert prevent us from helping people in need like the people in Darfur.

“When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur.”
–Sarah Palin, Oct. 2, 2008, VP Debate.

[...]These documents (linked below) show Governor Palin was asked by members of Congress to divest from Sudan’s genocide-related companies in November of 2006. Records show her Administration was asked again to divest through 2007, that this issue was discussed in Alaska’s media, and that her Administration opposed legislation to divest from these companies through February of 2008.

From Mudflats

Read this immediately! It is important that everyone be aware of something as terrible as this, and the false claims coming from it.

The BBC's Amber Henshaw in the capital, Khartoum, said it was not immediately clear who had launched the attack.

An estimated 300,000 people have died in five years of conflict in Darfur.

The killing of the peacekeeper comes amid a recent rise in the number of attacks against the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur, our correspondent says.

The situation on the ground in Darfur has become increasingly complicated and anarchic as more and more groups take advantage of the lawless situation there, she reports.

SOURCED ROM BBC

Watch it below. (double click on video for full screen)

Sarah Palin: But as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also, the supported of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.

America is in a position to help. What I've done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that's pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn't passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.

I'm glad Gov. Palin is supportive of Divestment from Sudan now. Apparently that wasn't always the case.

After the debate, ABC News reported that "Palin's administration openly opposed the bill, and stated its opposition in a public hearing on the measure."

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February.

...

Gara says the lack of support from Palin's administration helped kill the measure.

-----

Read the ABC news story refuting Palin's Sudan claim.

Watch the entire debate on CNN.

During last week’s Vice Presidential debate, Governor Palin stated that once she “found out” that her state’s large investment funds held stock in companies linked to the Darfur genocide, she worked to divest from them, in a stand against Sudan’s brutal genocide. Dozens of other states have divested from companies linked to the government-sponsored genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region. The facts show the Governor did not in fact take a stand on this issue when she “found out” about it.  A recently discovered 2006 letter, other documents, and records of legislative committee testimony show the Palin Administration opposed efforts by Alaska legislators to pass a Darfur divestment bill until near the end of the 2007-2008 legislative session.

Last week, during the vice presidential debate between Republican nominee Governor Sarah Palin and Democratic nominee Senator Joe Biden, a very interesting - and promising - exchange brough Darfur to the forefront of the 2008 election:

From SaveDarfur:

You can learn more about the candidates’ Darfur positions at AddYourVoice.org.

IFILL: Senator, you have quite a record, this is the next question here, of being an interventionist. You argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground. Boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?
BIDEN: I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia. I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked. Look what we did in Bosnia. We took Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, being told by everyone, I was told by everyone that this would mean that they had been killing each other for a thousand years, it would never work.

There’s a relatively stable government there now as in Kosovo. With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to — I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.

I, along with Dick Lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we need, we’d be there for a decade and it’d cost us tens of billions of dollars. John McCain said, no, it was going to be OK.

I don’t have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It’s within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we’re willing to take a hard stand. We can, I’ve been in those camps in Chad. I’ve seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide.

IFILL: Thank you, senator. Governor.

PALIN: Oh, yeah, it’s so obvious I’m a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You’re one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.

And you had supported John McCain’s military strategies pretty adamantly until this race and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama’s military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops that attempt all through the primary.

And I watched those debates, so I remember what those were all about.

But as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also, the supported of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.

America is in a position to help. What I’ve done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that’s pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn’t passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.

IFILL: Is there a line that should be drawn about when we decide to go in?

BIDEN: Absolutely. There is a line that should be drawn.

IFILL: What is it?

BIDEN: The line that should be drawn is whether we A, first of all have the capacity to do anything about it number one. And number two, certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack’s view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all.

The truth of the matter is, though, let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy. I never supported John McCain’s strategy on the war. John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said, go back and look at Barack Obama’s statements and mine. Go look at joebiden.com, contemporaneously, held hearings in the summer before we went to war, saying if we went to war, we would not be greeted as liberator, we would have a fight between Sunnis and Shias, we would be tied down for a decade and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.

John McCain was saying the exact opposite. John McCain was lock- step with Dick Cheney at that point how this was going to be easy. So John McCain’s strategy in this war, not just whether or not to go, the actual conduct of the war has been absolutely wrong from the outset.

IFILL: Governor.

PALIN: I beg to disagree with you, again, here on whether you supported Barack Obama or John McCain’s strategies. Here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this, but we listened to the debates.

I think tomorrow morning, the pundits are going to start do the who said what at what time and we’ll have proof of some of this, but, again, John McCain who knows how to win a war. Who’s been there and he’s faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military.

He knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen in the war in Iraq, especially. He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He’ll know how to win a war.

IFILL: Thank you, governor.