What can we do to help the people of the Darfur Region in the Sudan?

[mikelewis]

There seems to be little doubt that a genocide is happening in Dafur as we speak. So what can we do? There are some very smart people here who have a lot of ability to motivate others in support of a cause. Is there something we can do? What has worked in the past to effect change in situations like this? Is the U.N. capable of resolving this disaster, is there sufficient international support? Is this a lost cause?

[etherealtruth]

1. I apologize in advance for my defeatist attitude...

...but with the Chimp at the helm in the U.S., we will throw our concerns behind the people and situations that grab his twisted attention (or help his "oil" buddies, help him avenge his dad...).

I understand its not solely the U.S.'s responsibility but the African Union is proving itself impotent.

I would have much preferred to liberate these people ...

[Imalittleteapot]

2. Check out this site.

http://www.savedarfur.org/go.php?q=takeActionNow.html

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

4. The US can dispatch "United Nations troops?"

How does that work?

[Igel]

5. I would say something like "conserve oil", but that wouldn't be

enough. Already too much demand for the stuff.

Xians in south feel left out ... go on mild rebellion. Shari'a imposed, oil money not returned to area ... it goes into higher gear. America ignores it, Europe ignores it, Arab League/OIC ignore it. Or nearly so; mostly there were denials as to how bad it was. A decade or so later, * and American fundies are upset. Something happens. Enough, at least for now.

Non-traditional Muslims in west upset. Well, can't say it's racism: both sides are same color. Can't say it's religion (not that it mattered before): both sides Muslim. Ethnic warfare ... unpleasant to ponder. Can't impose a no-fly zone: insufficient access, and an insignificant portion of the fighting is done from the air, unlike in the south of Sudan. Arab League and the world would be in a tizzy--how dare the Western imperialists/corporate empires/whites/Crusaders/neocons pick on an Third World/oil-bearing/mostly black African/Arab/Muslim country; the fundies would be incensed, Khartoum is Shari'a-minded and Sa'udi Arabia loves it every bit as much as they love the Shari'a imposed in much of Somalia. No upside in the PR world.

Downside: more outrage from African and Arab countries, China would have trouble getting the oil it's contracted to develop in Sudan, France wouldn't be seen nearly as pro-Arab as it has been, and neither would Russia further burnish its image as pro-Arab/anti-US. Hmmmm ... leaves America and Britain on the security council, you know, the white "anglosphere" with the history of delighting in killing brown-skilled folk ... they're not going to repeat that mistake any time soon.

Upside: somebody would feel good about "liberating" the Darfurians. Until a newspaper reported on the number of civilian deaths--a janjaweed without his gun is a civilian--and reports that the death toll from the 'liberation' far exceeds the numbers that would have been killed under 'genocide.' As though that were the sole criterion of any use anywhere. And then there are calls for bringing the 'liberators' before the ICC. If the 'liberators' maintain their position that it was a good thing, it'll be dubbed hubris and arrogance. Sorry, I don't see a likely upside, or a motivation anybody can act on for doing more than wringing hands, making sure they're not forced to do something other than sending in African Union troops (while dutifully respecting Sudan's culture/ religion/ autonomy/ sensitivities/ sovereignty/ ...) and making all the sound bites come out as positive as possible.

OK, who's been putting the cynicism in my coffee?