Skip to content or view screen version

Day for Darfur: Tens of Thousands Rally in Global Day Against Genocide

Democracy Now! via sam | 19.09.2006 03:18 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Repression | World

Tens of thousands of protesters rallied around the world on Sunday in a global day against genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. The global day of protests was organized to coincide with the start of the United Nations General Assembly debate this week on Sudan. We speak with Darfur refugee Mohamed Yahya as well as the head of a Sudan divestment campaign.

Darfur Rally
Darfur Rally

Darfur Rally
Darfur Rally

Darfur Rally
Darfur Rally

Darfur Rally
Darfur Rally

Darfur Rally
Darfur Rally


AMY GOODMAN: I’m joined right now by two guests. Here in the studio at Stanford University in California is Jason Miller. He's national policy director at the Sudan Divestment Task Force and a graduate student at U.C. San Francisco. He just graduated from Stanford a few months ago. In our New York studio is Mohamed Adam Yahya. He is chair of the Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy, an organization founded to promote the human rights of Darfuris in exile as well as in Sudan. He spoke yesterday at the rally in New York. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Mohamed Yahya, let’s begin with you. What are you demanding right now?

MOHAMED ADAM YAHYA: First of all, thank you so much for Democracy Now! for having me here today. This is a wonderful opportunity. My demands right now, I am so optimistic and I feel that this resolution, which is passed last week that’s going to make a difference for the issue of Darfur, especially if that was implemented immediately and the United Nations take this opportunity to send the peacekeepers on the ground in Darfur.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, explain what's happening. At the end of the month, the African Union forces leave and the Sudanese government will not allow UN forces to enter.

MOHAMED ADAM YAHYA: In this case, the situation is going to be worse, and there is going to be a real disaster over there, because the government of Sudan right now threatening to send those African Union troops, almost about 7,000, who are already doing the job over there, but they are not sufficient to do the job perfectly, because Darfur is really double size of France, not only size of France, and it’s even bigger than Texas, a state here in the United States, and it is not enough for the African Union to do that job. And even though the government of Sudan trying to get them out of the country and to open the way to the troops from the government, which has already deployed in Darfur about 3,000 troops, this for the first time since this war began in Darfur to send this big amount of people over there, all those troops. And this is really creating a new disaster. The government has started in just two weeks, and even before this resolution passed in August 31st, they watched and launched those troops in Darfur, and they targeting those civilians in the villages and bombed them, and even they displaced so many recently from their villages.

AMY GOODMAN: Jason Miller, can you talk about the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, what the U.S. Congress is doing about Darfur?

JASON MILLER: The U.S. Congress major piece of legislation, as you mentioned, is the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Unfortunately, as it went through multiple iterations that passed through the House and Senate, it got watered down to some degree to the extent now that the current version that we have has dropped the possibility for a no-fly zone and secondly has also dropped the federal government's explicit support for the divestment campaign that’s happening across the country at the state level.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is that divestment campaign?

JASON MILLER: So, the general concept of divestment is that right now there are no economic levers or pressure from the U.S. on Sudan, because the U.S. already had sanctions on Sudan because it’s a state sponsor of terrorism. But as U.S. citizens, we can exert pressure on companies that are significantly supporting the Sudanese government and allowing them to carry out their military campaign. And so, what we’re trying to do across the country is pull that economic lever so that Sudan has a buy-in into creating peace in Darfur. They have a worse alternative if they don't create peace, and that is the economic fall-out of this divestment campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Like against Apartheid South Africa.

JASON MILLER: Very much similar to that.

AMY GOODMAN: Who is putting pressure, who pulled these sections of the bill out?

JASON MILLER: Well, the current Section 11, which helped to give federal protection to states divesting, was pulled out by Senator Lugar, who is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he just introduced that – pulled that revised version last Monday.

AMY GOODMAN: And who’s putting pressure on him?

JASON MILLER: We don't know the exact people. We do know that the National Foreign Trade Council, which is a coalition of the largest multinationals with a presence in the U.S., is actively against the Sudan divestment campaign. We also suspect through our contacts in Congress that some members in the State Department are against the divestment campaign, because they view it as a turf war between the federal government and the state's rights to do what they deem as foreign policy.

AMY GOODMAN: The Trade Council you mentioned saying that we're not going to have foreign policy determined by the Mayor of Berkeley.

JASON MILLER: Right, that is the exact group that mentioned that, and their view is that only the federal government determines foreign policy. Our view is that this isn’t an issue of foreign policy, it’s a state’s right to invest based upon financial risk and moral factors that they deem okay for them.

AMY GOODMAN: Is the Trade Council suing Illinois?

JASON MILLER: The Trade Council is indeed suing Illinois for its divestment bill right now. And our worry is that if they are successful in Illinois, that will give cold feet to other state legislatures who are right now actively considering divestment.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohamed Yahya, do you support a divestment campaign of companies involved with Sudan?

MOHAMED ADAM YAHYA: Absolutely, I support divestment, and especially those companies who are working on investing their money in a large scale in Sudan. This is really one of the bad things that are affecting those Darfurians and those victims, who are already victimized by the government of Sudan. And they use this money to fuel the war, to fuel the war, and as the government gets this money to use to get the weapons and to get, yes, a kind of, you know, yes, weapons of mass destruction and to use it against those civilians in Darfur. And we’re against this kind of act. And we encourage all those companies or even governments who are working in Sudan to divest immediately, because the money, this -- we consider this money is bad money, because blood money is a bad money.

AMY GOODMAN: Jason Miller, what companies are doing business with Sudan?

JASON MILLER: It's important to emphasize that our group is not interested in targeting all companies, because some are doing substantial good in Sudan, but the ones that are really helping the government without providing benefit to Sudan’s citizens tend to be oil and energy companies from China, Russia, India, Malaysia, and to some degree France. And not surprisingly, these are the same countries, especially China and Russia, that are impeding a lot of international action on the issue of Darfur. They’re protecting their commercial interests in the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohamed Yahya, we just have a few seconds. What at this point are you saying needs to be done? Do you believe that a U.N. peacekeeping force in Sudan will make the difference? Is it at all possible? We're talking just a matter of days before the end of September, when the African Union forces leave.

MOHAMED ADAM YAHYA: Certainly, the peacekeepers, if deployed immediately to Sudan, they are going to make a difference. And our people over there, they are waiting for a long time to get those peacekeepers in Darfur. And they even demonstrated in their camps, those IDPs and those refugees in the cities, in the towns, in their shelters in Chad, they made a statement, and they said, “Welcome, welcome, U.S.A. Welcome, welcome, United Nations,” because the only way out from this really terrible war and this genocide to send the international peacekeepers, the foreigners, and this is going to -- hopefully United States of America to lead this mission, and immediately, before those African Union withdrawn from Darfur. And this is the only solution, I believe.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both very much for being with us: Mohamed Yahya in our studio in New York, a Darfuri refugee, and Jason Miller here in Stanford University, where we're broadcasting from today.

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/1351249

Democracy Now! via sam

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

There is No Genocide in Darfur but insecurity by rebel groups

19.09.2006 11:41

Western propagandists(BBC, CNN, SKY, etc) are tirelessly feeding the world with racist poison,,"black africans are being killed by Arabs". The same people failed the south sudanese that were resisting a genuine racist war.
Darfur is not about Genocide but, criminality by rebel groups and oil. If the world was really concerned with Ending "Genocide", why not start in places like Iraq, Palestine, Congo DRC and Northern Uganda.

Western stage managed Demos are pathetic just like the murderous Sudanese Liberation Army and other insurgent groups that are puppeting for the capitalistic bloody dollar.

African forces on the ground have not reported of any massacres, but BBC, CNN and SKY keep hallucinating of a Genocide because they cannot handle the influence of china in the region.

Mary Cox
- Homepage: http://www.msf.org


Undermined by your own link

20.09.2006 08:52

I'm always amazed at how many people use links in their posts as "proof" of their point of view when those links invariably undermine their argument entirely, rather than supporting it.

For exaple, on an earlier Darfur thread we had someone claiming that Darfur had resulted in 1.6 million deaths and claiming that those wishing to prevent a genocide had cynically waited until it had already happened. When challenged they triumphantly posted a link to that statistic - but the link said clearly that 1.6 million people had fled the killings, not that 1.6 million had died.

And now we have 'Mary' above. To support her thesis, she povides a link to Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). But it doesn't take more than a few clicks around that website to show that their testimony completely undermines her conspiracy theorizing. For example:

"People in the region continue to tell the doctors and nurses in our clinics of a scorched earth policy being carried out by Janjaweed militias backed by the government of Sudan that has resulted in the forced displacement of an estimated one million people within the Darfur region and an additional 110,000 people to neighboring Chad. People have been brutally attacked and chased from their homes. Their villages have been bombarded, burned, emptied, and sometimes occupied. Water points and crops have been destroyed and property such as food stocks and livestock have been looted or completely ruined."

Under the headline "Obstacles to Humanitarian Access" MSN say:

"First and foremost, the government of Sudan is currently implementing a policy intended to drastically limit the ability of humanitarian organizations to freely and independently assess the needs of the displaced population and implement assistance programs in Darfur."

 http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?objectid=DB8843B3-F57D-4054-82D6530AA6D15E6C&component=toolkit.report&method=full_html

What is even more dispicable, is this 'Mary' posted the link to Médecins Sans Frontières under her name, dishonestly creating the impression that she works for that organisation and speaks with their authority. Absolutely NOWHERE on the MSF website ( http://www.msf.org/) is there any suggestion that MSF share 'Mary's' assessment of the situation. In fact, quite the opposite.

I rest my case.

Qwerty


'Day for Darfur' sham

20.09.2006 19:11

Western calls for 'UN troops' to be sent to Darfur, supported by the likes of Amnesty International, Medicins san Frontieres and 'Qwerty', is essentially a call for an invasion of Sudan by imperialism. Their orchestrated, empty, hollow 'demonstrations' led by war criminal Blair, a sham. Empty, because all over Europe, including in Britain, Sudanese people are locked up in detention centres for the 'crime' of seeking asylum - treated with racist contempt. Many are destitute, homeless and live in poverty and despair. Desmond Tutu says nothing about this racism. So much for the concern for the poor people of Sudan. As for those who have actually fled Darfur into neighbouring Chad, over 200,000 live in disease-ridden camps, with no clean drinking water and no food. In Darfur, food rations were halved due to lack of funding in May 2006, by the saviours of the 'black Africans'. Lack of funding not 'insecurity' [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4954096.stm]. Only a third of the funds asked for were actually provided. Yet they want to spend millions sending troops onto Darfur. When African asylum seekers in Britain demonstrate, they are ignored. When Sudanese people demonstrated against the US missile strike against a Khartoum pharmaceutical factory, the al-Shifa pharmacy, in August 1998, that killed tens of thousands of civilians, they were ignored by the media. The Labour government and Blair supported the bombing. All of a sudden demonstrations in Africa are headline news! Africans demonstrating in London get press coverage. How refreshing.


'UN troops' is a euphemism for British and US forces. Britain and the US are extremely keen to gain control of Sudan's massive oil fields, especially those located in Darfur. Sudan's oil fields are extremely underdeveloped and alost as large as Saudi Arabia's and goes mostly to China. Under the cover of 'humanitarian intervention' to help the 'poor civilians in Darfur', imperialism wants to get control of Sudan and Amnesty, MSF, Qwerty and co. are providing the ideological justification for this.
Imperialist intervention has never brought peace and security for poor or African people; why should things be any different in Sudan? Imperialist intervention, either direct or through armed proxies, is always for the purpose of colonising or dominating the invaded lands, to dominate economically the banks, financial institutions and state resources for the benefit and enrichment of the imperialist countries. Civilian lives won't be saved - bombing Sudan [with cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells, cruise missiles, white phosphorus, etc as in Iraq] will result in the deaths of thousands of civilans, and with no hospitals or medicines or water or food to cushion the blows, millions will die over many years. No doubt MSF and Amnesty will describe this as a 'mistake' or 'blunder', rather than as 'terrorism' which it surely will be. Amnesty and co. reserve their harshest criticisms for those fighting against imperialism.
Calling for 'UN troops' is a call for more imperialist brutality. The JEM and SLA are actually armed by France, Israel, Britain and the US via neighbouring African states, such as Eritrea and Chad. This is an established fact, not conspiracy. No more 'missionaries' like Amnesty, MSF, Oxfam, and co. justifying a racist ideology and system, imperialism, under the cover of humanitarianism! As Mary Cox said, there are wars raging in Iraq, Palestine and a real genocide in DRCongo - 1,200 die every day, 4 million since 1998 - with total silence from do-gooders like Blair, Tutu and 'Qwerty'. But then imperialism is benefiting from the war in Congo, so why rock the boat full of gold, diamonds and coltan?
It's no wonder in any case when you see how much 'international aid agency' executives are paid annually, or where they get their funding. They benefit from the profits of imperialist exploitation of the rest of the oppressed world and so defend it and its goals, if not its methods. You know what you can do with your hypocritical 'Day for Darfur'. No war for oil, thank you.

Chudi Nkem


Make your mind up

20.09.2006 22:10

The poster above must make up his mind. If it is all a "sham", pray tell what are people seeking asylum from?

Qwerty


QWERTY being deliberately obtuse

20.09.2006 23:38

The poster said that the "Day for Darfur" was a sham - the "Day for Darfur" was called because there are asylum seekers and a need to seek asylum, and because a lot of the big zionist players in the USA pushed hard for it to happen. Witness websites that advocate for Israel AND for western intervention in Darfur. And actually no surprise to see QWERTY aligned with a campaign closely linked to the rabid zionist lobby.

What is a sham is the idea that western troops should go and occupy another (oil rich) country. Aint no-one left who don't know what happened next after the HOOMANITARIAN interventions in other oil rich (and strategic for oil pipes) countries. Oh sorry, no-one except QWERTY, and he's only pretending he don't know.



ytrewq