1
   

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 05:49 pm
OB, It's so nice you are so generous for the starving people of this world. Keep up the good works; you may be obnoxious, but you're still a good man.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 05:51 pm
No I didn't offer the rhetorical question to somehow diminish the importance of Saddam's intentional murder of half-a-million children. It was a question of whether the Sudanese problem isn't just as dire for some of the same reasons and for many other reasons.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 05:56 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Free, I thought of another for you. What would you call a single father who spent every dime of welfare money on himself while his children starved to death, trapped in the basement with no food? Would you call him a murderer? That would be a heinous murder, wouldn't it? What if he had 560,000 children aged 5 and under by 1998 and God knows how many after that (because he stopped letting the authorities count the bodies)? Does the larger number make it okay? What makes it okay?


Nothing makes it ok. What makes blowing up his house with the kids in it the best solution?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 06:22 pm
Trying to confound the arguement by offering a weakly constructed accusation that there is no empathy for those who have needlessly lost their lives is a strawman.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 06:23 pm
Well - here are some results of 30 seconds of reaearch:

Latest news on Google:

Sudanese government ready for Abuja talks over Darfur
www.chinaview.cn 2005-02-27 04:59:15


KHARTOUM, Feb. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- The Sudanese government on Saturday confirmed its readiness to resume peace talks with Darfur rebels in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, the official SUNA news agency reported.

The government "has a clear view on the political solution as well as arrangements of the situation in Darfur within the framework of the southern Sudan peace agreement," Political Secretary of the ruling National Congress Majzoub el-Khalifa was quoted as telling a visiting African Union (AU) delegation. He reiterated his government's commitment to a ceasefire agreement and a full cooperation with the AU to realize stability in Darfur.

He commended the AU's stance that the Darfur conflict should be solved within the African framework, without any external interventions, to ensure Sudan's unity and sovereignty. The delegation also commended the government's keenness to find a comprehensive solution to the Darfur crisis through political dialogue.

Violence flared up in February 2003 between local farmers and militia over scarce natural resources in the western Darfur region. After two years of clashes, two main rebel groups began painstaking peace talks with the Sudanese government. A ceasefire agreement has been signed between the two sides, but violations have been reported on both sides from time to time. Enditem


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-02/27/content_2623860.htm



Here is a reasonable Canadian op/ed piece on the situation:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1109373906842&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


What the US thinks should happen (I note no desire to run in almost alone sans world co-operation)

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050226/2005022635.html


Human Rights Watch are pissed off:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/45645589c80d541fc602961dda04668c.htm

Somethings from a Sudanese paper!!!!! -

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=8241

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=8211
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 06:25 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Nothing makes it ok. What makes blowing up his house with the kids in it the best solution?
A decade and a half of proving we have no other... while Saddam murdered the last Million of his victims. The difference is; this generation has a chance at something better. The status quo would have left generation after suffering generation in hopelessness forever.

Lightwizard wrote:
No I didn't offer the rhetorical question to somehow diminish the importance of Saddam's intentional murder of half-a-million children. It was a question of whether the Sudanese problem isn't just as dire for some of the same reasons and for many other reasons.
That post got stuck in my bullsh!t filter... but I'll answer anyway. :wink: There has in the past and without help will likely be in the future mass starvation in Sudan brought about by the struggles. Over the last 50 years a combination of war and famine (often brought by war) has killed 2 million people. Statistically speaking, nothing about Sudan trumps the plight of the Iraqi... accept the shameful lack of assistance. While Omar is certainly an A-hole, he isn't even in the same school of A-hole as Saddam (that's a very excusive A-hole club... and few seem to really know that.) Culpability for starvation is on an entirely different level because there was no money train comparable to OFF Program for Omar to pilfer (though he's no doubt guilty of the same to a lesser degree). Sudan needs help badly... but it's a matter of political foolishness to pretend the Iraqis didn't.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 06:27 pm
OK - BBC Question and Answer - these usually include a lot of links to start looking at the situation via:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

BBC in-depth analysis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/sudan/default.stm

If I could only get into Foreign Affairs I could really give some background! Grrrrrrrrr.....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 06:30 pm
It seems the EU is silent on this issue. I wonder why?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 06:57 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Trying to confound the arguement by offering a weakly constructed accusation that there is no empathy for those who have needlessly lost their lives is a strawman.
Had I tried to do that, you would be correct.

Interestingly, your weakened summary of my position does constitute a Strawman. Just so there's no confusion here:
A. Your words were clearly intended to take the bite away from the 500,000 kids who were murdered in Iraq.
Lightwizard wrote:
How many have been starved to death Sudan by the government in the past ten years or so? No figures to compare there.
By finishing your paragraph with "No figures to compare there.", you demonstrate that you neither looked for an answer nor wanted one… Which makes the paragraph a conclusion, not a question… which means it's a rhetorical device clearly intended to detract from the Iraqi tragedy, but offers NOTHING to do so. It remains a shameless sidestepping of massmurder in a shotty attempt to belittle my point.

B. Your denial doesn't change that. Only an edit would.

C. I didn't attempt to present your case in a weakened form for the purpose of refuting it. I gave you my honest interpretation of what I see as your obvious purpose. That you are now pretending that your purpose was to learn how many may have starved in Sudan is dishonest, as can clearly be seen by looking at the wording of your very next line. Now drop this inanity along with your obviously false charge please.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 07:03 pm
Deb, how is it possible that after 25,000 posts you're still stretching pages with links instead of hitting the URL button?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 07:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It seems the EU is silent on this issue. I wonder why?


I think not.

Currently there is a drama going on re trying the expected war criminals.

The European Union etc want them tried in the International Criminal Court - a tribunal which the US won't support because it fears "frivolous cases against US military personnel".

The US does not want the putative war criminals tried there, as they see this would strengthen the position of the International court - they want a little International court set up in Africa.

Sigh. Politics as usual, I guess.

Here are some urls:

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-69FS3B?OpenDocument


http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/05/int12.htm


Here is Wikipedia on the conflict - including info that the EU have sent monitors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

EU aid pledges:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3945231.stm


EU and US speaking together:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3843323.stm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 07:33 pm
OB, Ain't that nice!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 07:35 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Deb, how is it possible that after 25,000 posts you're still stretching pages with links instead of hitting the URL button?


Perhaps because on my computer the links aren't stretching anything - and I am trying to put some info in this thread very fast before i have to go to work?

I might also add that I am on my old computer - and opening the Reply box takes ages.

Have a great day too, Bill.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 07:39 pm
dlowan, It would seem to me that the EU must go forward with or without US approval if what they seek is the right thing to do. BTW, that "ain't that nice" comment was not meant for you.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 08:06 pm
CI, aint what nice?

Deb, long links stretch pages on those of us that use small display settings. It's hardly a big deal... and I wouldn't have said anything thing if I thought you'd take it personal. If it makes you feel any better, CI did the same to the Iraq thread. What's gotten into everyone today? You and LW are freaking on me and scarier still; CI's being nice. Shocked

Have a great day at work!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 08:19 pm
I did look for an answer while looking for your UNICEF statistics on how many children perished by starvation under Saddam. Came up with nothing in either case. I suggest the reason this is caught up in your BS filter is that your feigned outrage is put on and you knew exactly what I meant in the first place. Don't try and convince me otherwise -- the strawman is still standing.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 09:42 pm
Laughing My outrage isn't feigned, LW; it's wholly imagined by you. I'm disgusted by your playing politics with a million dead, and mildly annoyed that you're refusing to either learn the definition of Strawman or listen to my concise explanation for why what I wrote doesn't constitute one, but outrage? No. You've also insulted me by saying I have no point for pointing out a painting has sentimental value to me on another thread. What gives? Do you want to tell me what your problem is? Or are you going to keep sniping at me with silly BS until I snap back?

If you wanted my UNICEF link, why not just ask for it? And how do you explain answering your own question if it was really a question? You've been caught, get over it... and until you remember how to be civil, I think I might just ignore you because this is getting tiresome.

Quote:
Don't try and convince me otherwise -- the strawman is still standing.
Translation: You're not interested in learning the truth and won't listen-- and you still don't understand the term Strawman. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 10:22 pm
(No worries Bill - I am back on Opera - it seems very un-prone to showing stretched pages due to urls - I wonder if you are on Mozilla Firefox, which, in my experience, is very sensitive to such?)

Just taking a slothful work break - and I found this the following article.

In scanning the stuff on child deaths in Iraq here, I was concerned about the information which I have seen from many different sources, about the very steep rise in virulent child cancers, and birth deformities, in areas of Iraq since Iraq I. A rise which is often attributed to the use by American and British forces of depleted uranium shells.

The US (and British?) denies that these are dangerous - either to those handling and loading them - or to people living amongst their debris.

I have seen a couple of documentaries on this - and read about it - and seen films of people discovering high radiation levels near where such munitions were used - but I do not know the truth.

Anyhoo - this article discusses rates of child mortality in Iraq and also deals with another radioactivity issue - (where I think they are drawing a long bow to blame the occupiers!!!)



I do not know how accurate it is - and it clearly takes a strong view re the matter - but it is a conversation starter!!!!:

MEDIA LENS MEDIA ALERT
19th October 2004

IRAQI CHILD DEATHS

Media Indifferent as UNICEF Reports Worsening Catastrophe


On February 16, 2003, Tony Blair responded to the biggest protest march in Britain's history the previous day:

"Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die, and some will be innocent. ... But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule..." (Blair, 'The price of my conviction,' The Observer, February 16, 2003)

Blair was referring to the mass death of children under sanctions reported by the UN, human rights groups and aid agencies. In a Newsnight interview Blair argued, "because of the way he [Saddam] implements those sanctions [they are] actually a pretty brutal policy against the Iraqi people". (BBC2, Newsnight Special, February 6, 2003)

In the late 1980s - before sanctions were imposed in 1990, and before the 1991 Gulf War - the mortality rate for Iraqi children was about 50 per 1,000 live births. By 1994 the rate had nearly doubled, to just under 90. By 1999, it had increased again to nearly 130 - 13% of Iraqi children were dying before their fifth birthday.

In response to this catastrophe, senior UN diplomats in Iraq resigned in protest. UN humanitarian coordinator, Denis Halliday, for example, resigned describing Western sanctions policy as "genocidal".

On October 11, a new global report was published by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Roger Wright, UNICEF's representative for Iraq, said:

"Since 1990, Iraq has experienced a bigger increase in under-five mortality rates than any other country in the world and since the war there are several indications that under-five mortality has continued to rise." ('Little progress on child mortality,' Integrated Regional Information Networks, October 11, 2004 http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/a244c1afba0ef201c1256f2a002a8f2c?OpenDocument)

UNICEF estimates that some indications showed improvement in Iraqi child mortality between 1999 and 2002 - the death rate dropped to 125 in 2002 (from 130 in 1999). However, this trend has +reversed+ under the occupation and child mortality is actually worsening as compared to 2002 levels. Wright added:

"Since the war more children in Iraq are malnourished, fewer children are protected from immunisable diseases and there has been an increase in the incidence of diarrhoeal disease." (Email to Media Lens, UNICEF Iraq Information, October 19, 2004)

In other words, the "coalition" is now presiding over levels of Iraqi infant mortality +worse+ than those described by Blair himself as brutal. And this in the context of the "coalition" having spent just $29m of the allotted $18.4bn US tax dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction on water, sanitation, health, roads, bridges, and public safety. (Naomi Klein, 'Why is war-torn Iraq giving $190,000 to Toys R Us?', The Guardian, October 16, 2004)

Quoting Iraqi Ministry of Health data, UNICEF reported last month that about three out of 10 children in Iraq are chronically malnourished or stunted. This is a consequence of underlying poverty and the inadequate intake of micronutrients. Acute malnutrition among children has almost doubled since the war began, moving from 4 per cent to 7.7 percent.

On September 3, Iraq's Ministry of Health and other health professionals reported there was still "a chronic shortage of medicines in the country". Intissar al-Abadi, chief pharmacist of Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad, told IRIN:

"We had a programme in which cancer and growth hormone drugs were available to patients according to their needs. The ministry used to offer a certain quantity to us every year, so there could be controlled assistance to the patient, but now all that is gone. You cannot imagine what effect the shortage of such drugs has had on patients." ('Medicine shortage continues,' Integrated Regional Information Networks, September 3, 2004, http://www.reliefweb.int)

The first comprehensive study on the condition of schools in post-conflict Iraq shows that one-third of all primary schools in Iraq lack any water supply and almost half are without any sanitation facilities.

The survey states that since March 2003, over 700 primary schools had been damaged by bombing - a third of those in Baghdad - with more than 200 burned and over 3,000 looted. ('Iraq's schools suffering from neglect and war UN Children's Fund,' October 15, 2004
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/fc340119ab6c95e3c1256f2e0058e358?OpenDocument)

All of these horrors are a direct result of the illegal US-UK invasion, of the "coalition's" incompetence in failing to plan for the occupation, and of the minimal spending on health care and public works. Bob Herbert wrote in the New York Times:

"As for the rebuilding of Iraq, forget about it... It's hard to believe that an administration that won't rebuild schools here in America will really go to bat for schoolkids in Iraq." (Herbert, 'A War Without Reason,' The New York Times, October 18, 2004)

The list of horrors goes on. Dr Thikra Najim, a specialist in gynaecology and obstetrics, reports that the number of cases of cancer in Iraq appears to be rising rapidly, especially for breast cancer. Dr Najim said:

"Now we're seeing three or four cases every week. I think the number is increasing. This is disastrous. We have to study it." ('Iraq: Cancer cases increasing, doctors say,' Integrated Regional Information Networks, September 29, 2004)

Doctors are now seeing many more cases of cancer in general. About 4,000 patients per year used to be seen at the radiation hospital in Baghdad. Dr Ahmed Abdul Jabhar, deputy director of the hospital, reports that 7,000 patients have been seen so far this year.

A September 21 Iraqi Ministry of Environment report revealed that Iraq is afflicted by widespread radioactive pollution, especially at Tuwaitha nuclear research site, south of Baghdad. Immediately following the US-UK invasion, residents of the area looted containers holding radioactive materials. The radioactive contents were dumped on the ground at the site and the containers used to carry water, milk and other household materials and foodstuffs. The survey reported:

"This site was polluted by looting and destroying research materials. We found a number of containers which had traces of radiation. We also found it in houses and villages nearby." ('Radioactive material and pollutants widespread,' Integrated Regional Information Networks , September 21, 2004, http://www.reliefweb.int)

As the occupying power, the "coalition" is accountable under international law for this looting and lawlessness. Former US Proconsul, Paul Bremer, told a conference of insurance agents that Baghdad was already in chaos by the time he arrived:

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground." (Thomas Ricks, Robin Wright, The Washington Post, October 5, 2004)
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/index.html#bremer

The Iraq survey also found depleted uranium in large amounts in southern Iraq, including in Hilla, the port city of Basra, and Karbala and Najaf.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, who was tasked by the US department of defence with organising the DU clean-up of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after the 1991 Gulf War, is himself ill:

"I am like many people in Southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended level of radiation in my body. The contamination was right throughout Iraq and Kuwait... What we're seeing now, respiratory problems, kidney problems, cancers, are the direct result of the use of this highly toxic material. The controversy over whether or not it's the cause is a manufactured one; my own ill-health is testament to that." (Quoted, Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, Verso, 2002, p.48)


The Media Response

So what kind of response would we expect from our media to the appalling news that an improving trend in child mortality has reversed under the Iraqi occupation, and that our government is presiding over genocidal levels of child deaths?

We recall, after all, that the Observer's Nick Cohen wrote in March 2002:

"I look forward to seeing how Noam Chomsky and John Pilger manage to oppose a war which would end the sanctions they claim have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of children who otherwise would have had happy, healthy lives in a prison state (don't fret, they'll get there)." (Cohen, 'Blair's just a Bush baby', The Observer, March 10, 2002)

The Sunday Telegraph declared, "it is the neighbourly duty of the West to liberate the Iraqis from their captivity at the hands of Saddam: the war would be just because of the suffering it would end." (Matthew d'Ancona, 'The Pope's disapproval worries Blair more than a million marchers', Sunday Telegraph, February 23, 2003)

A search using the Lexis-Nexis website shows that the UNICEF report received brief mentions in four British newspapers.

The Financial Times reported matter-of-factly:

"In 11 countries, under-five mortality has risen since 1990, the report notes. They include Cambodia, Iraq, Ivory Coast and four southern African nations - Botswana, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe - where Aids has been most rampant." (Frances Williams, 'Unicef warns on child mortality targets,' The Financial Times, October 8, 2004)

That was that! No mention of the tragedy that has befallen Iraq under the British and US occupation. Not a word of comment on the significance of the disaster for the claims that the invasion would relieve the suffering of ordinary Iraqis.

In the Guardian, Rory Carroll wrote:

"Unicef said that even... 'alarmingly slow progress' had bypassed southern Africa, Iraq and countries of the former Soviet Union... In addition to southern Africa, infants were now more likely to die in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Iraq, Cambodia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan." (Rory Carroll, 'Bucking world trends, Africa's child death rate is rising,' The Guardian, October 8, 2004)

Iraq was presented as just another item on a list. Of the fact that Britain invaded Iraq illegally and is therefore morally responsible for the mass death of children, not a word appeared in the paper.

The Independent's Jeremy Laurance noted of the report:

"It charts the drastic decline in the health of the [Iraqi] population and the catastrophic deterioration in health services during Saddam Hussein's era, one which has accelerated since the war."

Again, no attempt was made to highlight the significance of the fact that the decline in health services "has accelerated since the war".

Laurance continued:

"One third of the health centres and one in eight of the hospitals was looted of furniture, fridges and air conditioners or had equipment destroyed in the immediate aftermath of the war."

Laurance then reviewed child mortality figures in the 1990s, adding:

"Adult death rates have risen and life expectancy has fallen to below 60 for men and women. Overall, Iraq's state of health is now rated on a par with the impoverished countries of the Sudan, Yemen and Afghanistan, where once it was ranked alongside Jordan and Kuwait, the report says." (Jeremy Laurance, 'Iraq: the aftermath: Iraq faces soaring toll of deadly disease,' The Independent, October 13, 2004)

Again, no conclusions were drawn on the moral status of the 'liberators' of Iraq.







Original article
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 10:37 pm
Just some other views:

Counter view re sanctions


BBC article providing a pretty balanced view, I think - and with urls to explore differing bviews:

BBC article


Damned if I know the truth!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 10:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
dlowan, It would seem to me that the EU must go forward with or without US approval if what they seek is the right thing to do.


Well - given that the US has been, as far as I can tell, pretty involved, and pretty damn positively so, in this matter - and given that co-operation would seem very necessary here, I guess this is just one of those damned things that make decision making in groups a very hard thing to do - which is presumably one of the things that makes the UN role as a "world police" organization so hard - and, I guess, makes a "America Globo-Cop" scenario attractive to people like Bill.

I would also guess that it is hard to spend money, and have your people die, in a situation where there is (unlike Iraq) no clear self-interest involved in the view of the folk deciding whether or not to get involved. That is, I guess no government actually WANTS to go in.

As well as the whole structure of national sovereignty and all......

But the ICC thing looks like being an ongoing sore in the world body, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:41:50