"Not on my watch" the famous words of Bush-on-Sudan echo off the pages. Rhetoric is always louder than the context in peoples' minds, even the sheer numbers are toyed with and forgotten. Unfortunately, words are the least real thing to arise from tragedy, but Mister President, you have it within your power to back those words up, and stop Darfur, Uganda, Congo, Somalia and so many other autrocities. You can even do it without invading Sudan to protect its "infrastructure" (aka OIL).
People make the mistake of thinking the "black" countries of the world have little impact, but world oil production and trade is shifting to Africa. The Middle East has wholy unwound in failed state, civil war, anarchy situations as its prime contribution to the globalized world runs out, leaving few besides Dubai standing. Even the United States is losing its strong card on resources and is turning to Africa for certain mine-able and strip-able raw materials. Make no mistake: should we fail to act now, Africa will make the Middle-east failure of the 20th century look like a cakewalk.
Since 1998 millions of people have been killed in the Second
Congo War, which officially "ended" during Bush's first term; it may be the deadliest conflict since WWII. They say the war turned so brutal people were eating the dead, in a country the size of half of western Europe. The irony is that "not on my watch" (in regards to Sudan) supposedly is a critique of Clinton's failure to stop
Rwanda, where Hutus and Tutsis, fearing each other for their lives, had spilled into Congo and became instrumental in the two Congolese wars that followed the 94 genocide.
South of Morocco is the Moroccan-Berber occupied Western Sahara, a crime of colonization, segregation and political oppression that rivals Palestine but due to the lesser presence in a Western mind is almost always brushed over by the corporate elite. Alas, there is not much sexy about continual major powers-backed suffering, especially when the victims are basically... "black", and there are no resources or crazy bearded men wearing unusual hats for us to get riled up about.
Then you have Uganda, whose history is well-documented in Maccabee's interview with a Ugandan cabbie here. The country with one of the highest proportions of HIV/AIDS in its populace is also a country racked by child slavery, as various thugs like the Lord's Resistance Army kidnap children (not 17 year old boys, pre-pubescent children) in the night and force them to wield guns (if even guns) on the equivalent of the front lines as bullet fodder, and to service soldiers sexually.
Sex and child slavery are not things Americans like to talk about, but it's the great shame of the late 20th and 21st century. Hundreds of thousands of people, and the worst may be in Uganda. In addition to the plagues and the slavery and fighting itself is starvation.
Starvation is the oldest weapons of mass destruction, and one of the most cruel. Though global warming may be the cause of famines terrible in the future, people are starving in Africa because tribal lords, militias and their first-world suppliers either want it, or look the way.
Photojournalist James Nachtwey once said the starvation victims you'll see in pictures are almost always being cared for at the charity camps... thus we rarely see the worst.
The last picture was taken in Sudan over ten years ago, but it's still the same story, and many here have covered it before. It's an oil war... Sudan is one of the few non-tropical countries in Africa without much concern for water. Nontheless there is famine and mass starvation and despair as well--for decades--but this current conflict is about oil, as others have laid bare. Evangelical groups and other hypers have changed focus to genocide (which it is of course) but left out the causation and the motivation (sort of important to people who like facts). This is no Rwanda or Shoa. Darfur is about greed, the same way that scores of youth are killed in Congo's diamond mines so Americans, Brits and Russians can wear a colorless glass on their fingers and ears (considered a low-form rock by many until a few Marilyn Monroe stints).
Somalia, well covered too. One president hates one group, tries to attack them, they kill Marines. Current regime finds he doesn't want the Islamist opponents taking over Mogadishu, so he backs the guys that killed the Marines (hey, according to Woodward, Herr Kissinger is the supposed role model here, so they get an A+)
With this information available to me did I interpret this BBC article:
Amnesty International's director-general, Irene Kahn, said the legislation concerning the arms trade was so outdated that the sale of soldiers' helmets was "better regulated than the sale of components that can be made into deadly weapons".
The report says weapons such as attack helicopters and combat lorries are being assembled under licence in countries including China, Egypt, Israel and Turkey.
It alleges that such weapons have gone to Sudan, Colombia and Uzbekistan, and it says it has received reports that they have been used against civilians.
One of the companies named in the report is British-based BAE Systems. (Commondreams)
Yes weapons are used against civilians! Perhaps William Lind's previous article in Counterpunch needs to be read by every journalist and wonk; this is the age of 4GW (Fourth Generational War). Of the millions who have died because of wars in Congo, Sudan, West African nations, Uganda and Somalia since 1998, comparatively few have been killed on a battlefield. Children are used as proxies by the proxies and make easy targets, but much death is unleashed via sacking, burning, invasion in the modes of famine and disease. These are WMD's unleashed against civilians. Once you get the bigger numbers out of the way, who makes an easier and better target, a civilian with food/water/arms/automobile or a wandering enemy soldier? The Geneva Conventions definately aren't applicable in these various African conflicts as there are hardly any well-organized, American style statist or national armies incorporatee.
Without action, this will define the 21st century rather than ring it in with unspeakable dishonor. And guess what?
According to the report's findings... The US, Russia, the UK, France and Germany remain the world's top arms exporters, accounting for about 82% of the market in 2005
Newer arms producers like Brazil, China and Israel have varying export controls which "do not always include explicit criteria... for authorising arms transfers"
Military essentials such as engines and electronics often do not appear on exporters' lists of sensitive technologies
That's funny... I don't see Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, North Korea, the Branch Davidians or any bogeymen with a funny hat anywhere on that list. In fact, those are all the U.S.'s coalition or de-facto allies selling 82% of the world's weapons!
Yes indeed, it's weapons made by the Democratics and the Capitalists (only Nixon could go to China? Well only China could outcapitalize the capitalists!) and apparently only the Free World could so oppress the rest with its smug, backdealing lust for power.
But I have some faith in dear leader. Why? Because he's an idealist. He believes in shaping history, not adapting to it. So it's entirely possible he will one day do something crazy with Somalia and follow a patriot's example, (other than occupation, he can't make that country much worse) If you know the President and you can read this, tell him he can make it stop, even though his armies are deployed and his missiles would be ineffectual.
He has soft power, not much left, but he'll find he has some when he works in good faith as equals with other nations on an issue that touches all our consciences. If this issue is not dealt with seriously, all the talk and blame over Israel and Palestine and Iraq and Rwanda will be of no use. These conflicts will continue as long as it is more convenient for people to buy automatic weapons than it is to invest in food, schools and a society for their children and parents.
The Clinton Initiative and the Tsunami Aid displays were astounding examples of good will, but both involved countries of militarization within the populations and sectarian strife and other war-related ills. It's a lot "safer" to talk about poverty and AIDS than it is to talk about what is the root of that in Sudan, Uganda. At this point it's simply war, what happens when war has been a means long enough to become endemic, and I didn't hear anyone-- including Bill Clinton--saying that on their media-blitz appearances. If I'm mistaken here I apologize.
Soldier guarding diamonds, not people, Congo.
Pragmatically, the United States must engage Africa. It needs the continent stable for development for its own uses, it also has a moral imperative due to the long history of U.S.-African-Euro interaction. Africa is one of the best opportunities to engage other countries, allies and partners that are considering and utilizing their own blocs for trade and politics as they find themselves increasingly uncomfortable with Washington dealings, whether the E.U. or Chavez in Venezuela.
"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated" -- James Nachtwey.
I had to write something because I wish to be no party to someone's dream of death-for-profit. Humanity needs a shared future, not a pyramid scheme. I believe in the worth of people suffering around the planet and want to see more than money or individual material contributions thrown at the problem, I want to see change so this autocrity and shame stops happening.
NOT ON MY WATCH.