Thanks. Looking forward to the Darfur articles.

As it happens, just this morning I had a discussion with a pro-intervention liberal friend of mine, who said we must "save them from themselves." While trying to argue against intervention, I realized that I know absolutely nothing about the situation, so I just kept changing the subject to Iraq.

-Ryan

There are several data points which don't square well with the mainstream American media's impression of Darfur (that it's an on-going genocide demanding urgent humanitarian intervention). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

1. Many of the principal backers of action against Sudan are Jewish Zionists or evangelical Christian Zionists – in fact, there is a broad overlap between the Jewish groups who supported war against Iraq and those who now want sanctions or intervention in Darfur. For example, the 'Save Darfur', group described by the Jerusalem Post:

"Little known, however, is that the coalition, which has presented itself as 'an alliance of over 130 diverse faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organization' was actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish community. And even now, days before the rally, that coalition is heavily weighted with a politically and religiously diverse collection of local and national Jewish groups. [...] Besides the Jewish origins and character of the rally – a fact the organizers consistently played down in conversations with The Jerusalem Post – the other striking aspect of the coalition is the noted absence of major African-American groups like the NAACP or the larger Africa lobby groups like Africa Action." [see Xymphora's blog for more]

Why is this?

2. The US-backed Kenyan invasion of Somalia, in the Horn, has caused an immense humanitarian crisis second only to Iraq, according to Oxfam. The US also sporadically bombs Somalia. What exactly is the mechanism that ensures we don't hear much about this in the United States, compared to the (apparently not US-sponsored) troubles in Darfur?

3. China is the major business partner and oil client of Sudan, and Zimbabwe for that matter. To what extent is US support for intervention or sanctions in Sudan, about confronting and blocking China's growing influence in Africa? Is the same true of Zimbabwe, where China relies on for chromium, platinum, and the trans-Angola pipeline?

This would be the 'Chomsky thesis' for why the US seems to be on the side of intervention, as compared to the 'Walt/Mearsheimer Thesis' of (1.) What weighting should we give these different motives?

Soggy, bring me back ten of the blackest Darfurites you can find. I need hood ornaments.

Anyway, I hope Mr North will help me clarify my ideas on that point.

Anyway, I hope Mr North will help me clarify my ideas on that point.

SOG is right, it is another Zionist campaign.

http://karinfriedemann.blogspot.com/2007/04/who-is-charles-jacobs.html