Ethical deals with Sudan?

[Agamemnon]

I believe the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan was called by Secretary of State Colin Powell a 'genocide' over a month and a half ago. He also implied that the majority of the blame for the situation could be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Sudanese government for failing to act.

Should the US be dealing with a state like this, that condones violence against it's own citizens? The US (and the Western nations) basically financed the government in its intense civil war against the African ethnic groups in the country in an attempt to drive them out and establish Arab control over every province.

There is a NY Times article here in which women are still being treated pretty poorly in the region, and little is being done to prevent it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/internat...artner=homepage

This crazy leftist seems to think that oil and China are two main reasons for US involvement in Sudan (declaration of genocide) than any actual empathy for the deaths of 100,000's.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW407B.html

So it begs the question, why the hell is the US dealing with this country? Under it's current strategic mandate, shouldn't this place be up for invasion pretty soon? At least some kind of sanctions? What aside from greed could possibly perpetuate American tolerance of crimes against humanity?

[arsenal]

Why 1997 Sanctions by US didn't happen

In late 1997, the US Congress passed into law a bill that placed economic sanctions on the country of Sudan. The United States decided to punish the Sudanese government, which the State Department declared is a "sponsor of terrorism and a relentless oppressor of its minority Christian population." The original bill was meant to terminate all commercial activities between the two countries, however, this did not come to fruition. Though the Sudanese government has no active lobby in this country, while the bill made its way through committee, several lobbying groups made a sudden appearance and opposed outright passage of the bill. They did not oppose the sanctions as a whole, they took issue on the possible sanction of only one product, gum arabic.....In August 1998, the attention of Congress was again drawn to the economic sanctions placed on Sudan, due to an alleged relation of suspected terrorist financier, Osama bin Laden, to many Sudanese companies - including the Gum Arabic Company, one of the leading exporters of gum in Sudan. However, most US companies claim that if there is indeed a relationship between Sudanese gum arabic exporters and Mr. bin Laden, they will cease all trade relations with those companies.

From greenleft.org.au

Annan's report flowed from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution 1556 passed on July 30, which threatened unspecified diplomatic and economic “measures” against Sudan's Islamist military rulers if they did not begin to stem, within 30 days, the vicious ethnic-cleansing campaign in Darfur being carried out against black villagers by state-sponsored Arabic-speaking janjaweed bandits......Since coming to office in 2001, US President George Bush's administration has strived, using a carrot-and-stick strategy, to secure a peace agreement between the mainly non-Muslim Sudan People's Liberation Movement rebels, based in the oil-rich south, and the Islamist regime in Khartoum. Washington hoped that the resulting “stability” in Sudan would allow it to lift existing US sanctions.

Yes, it should be. But the US cannot go invade another country at the current moment. The UN will have to do this one. And they are still talking about it. So, unless another country wants to stand up and unilaterally go into the Sudan, the people are screwed. We all know the reaction to Bush going into Iraq unilaterally, so the prospects of another country stepping up, is likely very slim.

[Agamemnon]

In August 1998, the attention of Congress was again drawn to the economic sanctions placed on Sudan, due to an alleged relation of suspected terrorist financier, Osama bin Laden, to many Sudanese companies - including the Gum Arabic Company, one of the leading exporters of gum in Sudan. However, most US companies claim that if there is indeed a relationship between Sudanese gum arabic exporters and Mr. bin Laden, they will cease all trade relations with those companies.

What I get from this is that Corporations have promised that if there are any ethical issues with the country/company they do business with, they'll simply police themselves? That sounds pretty darn weak... corporations don't give a crap about terrorist or separatist groups, they just want to make a buck. The government is supposed to be the one who decides if there are moral reasons not to do business with a country, not corporations.

I just thought under the new doctrine of pre-emptive strikes that the US would at least do something, like strafe the hell out of some of the militia's attacking Africans in the Darfur.

Or... impose sanctions in response to the lack of government action to prevent the killing (and probably secretly supporting) of its own peoples. Screw the Gum lobby, I think genocide is more important that the Gum Arabic Company.

[arsenal]

You said this about Bin Laden being used in advertising

Originally posted by Agamemnon
Doesn't really make a difference to me. If that store wants to be associated with profiting off of Osama bin Laden, I say let 'em.

Now you are saying that companies shouldn't be aloud to make money, becuase some of their supplies come from a country with possible ties to Bin Laden.

I am sure your argument will be something along the lines of: "Bin Laden is not profiting from the ad campaign that is using him." And you are probably right. But these are 2 sides to the same coin.

What would you like the US to do? They already have troops in 2 Islamic countries, and now you want to invade another? You cry foul for the US invading Iraq, and removing Saddam (who himself contributed to crimes against humanity), now are saying the US isn't doing enough to stop the crimes in the Sudan.

It seems to be a case of "Your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't". Like i said in my previous post, either another country is going to have to unilaterally move into the Sudan, or it is going to have go through the UN. One is quick, but leads to speculation over motivs(sp). The other takes longer, but is universially accepted.

Now having said all that, I agree. The world needs to get involved in Sudan, and needs to do it quickly. Martin has already stood up in front of the UN and basically said "You idiots, get off your asses and do something", which I applaud him for. If Canada had any sort of military, we probably could join forces with the US and UK and go it alone. But that isn't going to happen, becuase well, Canada has no military to speak of.

[Agamemnon]

You said this about Bin Laden being used in advertising

Now you are saying that companies shouldn't be aloud to make money, becuase some of their supplies come from a country with possible ties to Bin Laden.

Lol, finally a debate, i'm so bored!

I think there's a pretty huge difference between using an image of Osama in a touque to sell hats, and directly or indirectly contributing funds to terrorist groups. Unless you think they're the same thing... I don't.

I am sure your argument will be something along the lines of: "Bin Laden is not profiting from the ad campaign that is using him." And you are probably right. But these are 2 sides to the same coin.

What would you like the US to do? They already have troops in 2 Islamic countries, and now you want to invade another? You cry foul for the US invading Iraq, and removing Saddam (who himself contributed to crimes against humanity), now are saying the US isn't doing enough to stop the crimes in the Sudan.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Osama isn't making money off the touque sale. I don't see the 'other side of the coin' on that issue.

I'm (obviously) not a huge interventionist. I'm 'crying foul' because the US administration has talked tough about these kinds of issues, now I'm waiting to see if they 'flip-flop' by calling the situation in Iraq a more necessary and justified war than possible intervention in Darfur. The US has taken it upon themselves to 'root out evil', well, there's a whole lot of evil in Sudan, why don't they take them out? Is it because the military's resources is spread impossibly thin? Is it because the international community would basically disown the US as the leader of liberal-democracy? Is it because the US simply doesn't care or is actually benefiting from the current arrangement?

It seems to be a case of "Your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't". Like i said in my previous post, either another country is going to have to unilaterally move into the Sudan, or it is going to have go through the UN. One is quick, but leads to speculation over motivs(sp). The other takes longer, but is universially accepted.

Well, one that is universally accepted is international trade sanctions. Why not have the UN mandate to every member-state that trading with Sudan is taboo? Because the member-states like trading with Sudan... and a host of other countries. Iran and North Korea do some brisk business because sanctions are in no way comprehensive or completely enforced.

Why is there a need to 'invade' to solve the problem anyway? We never invaded South Africa, but there was still some pretty solid pressure raised in the form of sanctions. Is there no longer the will power among the international community to adhere to sanctions? Should the US be taking a leading role in creating and enforcing them?

Now having said all that, I agree. The world needs to get involved in Sudan, and needs to do it quickly. Martin has already stood up in front of the UN and basically said "You idiots, get off your asses and do something", which I applaud him for. If Canada had any sort of military, we probably could join forces with the US and UK and go it alone. But that isn't going to happen, becuase well, Canada has no military to speak of.

I guess the bottom-line question is, "Why is the international community not taking a more active role in the 'genocide' in Darfur". I mean, its not like sanctions would cripple anyone too badly... except the Arab Gum Company I guess... but screw them.

If the reason the US isn't leading the charge is due to commercial interest in the country, I guess I'm just p*ssed that the interests and profits of a few multi-national companies take interest over a couple thousand people murdered.

Just frustrated I guess.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 26 2004, 04:48 PM
I believe the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan was called by Secretary of State Colin Powell a 'genocide' over a month and a half ago. He also implied that the majority of the blame for the situation could be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Sudanese government for failing to act.

Should the US be dealing with a state like this, that condones violence against it's own citizens? The US (and the Western nations) basically financed the government in its intense civil war against the African ethnic groups in the country in an attempt to drive them out and establish Arab control over every province.

There is a NY Times article here in which women are still being treated pretty poorly in the region, and little is being done to prevent it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/internat...artner=homepage

This crazy leftist seems to think that oil and China are two main reasons for US involvement in Sudan (declaration of genocide) than any actual empathy for the deaths of 100,000's.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW407B.html

So it begs the question, why the hell is the US dealing with this country? Under it's current strategic mandate, shouldn't this place be up for invasion pretty soon? At least some kind of sanctions? What aside from greed could possibly perpetuate American tolerance of crimes against humanity?

Blocking Chinese oil deals in Iraq, scuppering the Shanghai Five, and working to undermine Chinese oil field development in Sudan serves a strategic goal of the US: to limit the rise of a great power rival. Keeping China (along with the European Union and Japan) dependent on the US for access to oil, is one way of ensuring US primacy remains unchallenged.

You know . . . . that's pretty stupid. Desperate too.

In this world, anyone who wants to buy oil can do so. Can we agree on that?

The USA can't stop that. Can we agree on that?

China's oil imports are up 40% in the last 12 months and a few other supply related issues (strikes in Nigeria and Norway, declining production in Venezuela, leal issues in Russia) has sent prices staggering higher. Can we agree on that?

The USA is a slave to oil. Can we agree on that?

Further to that, the USA is a slave to oil and vastly dependent on foreign sources for about 60% of its consumption I think. Can we agree on that?

Since the price of oil is based on a global market, can we agree that removing Chinese demand from the global equation via Sudan supplies would actually decrease demand elsewhere?

In that light, can we agree global prices would fall?

Can we agree the global oil prices would decline from the development of Sudanese oil reserves, even in China imports those new reserves all for its own use?

Can we agree the USA economy would benefit from lower oil prices?

Can we also agree that China is sniffing around Canadian resource companies as a way to secure supplies as well? And is interested in a fair-sized investment in the Athabasca oil sands?

Can we therefore agree that China's interest in global commondities is just that - global?

China imports inflation and exports deflation. That is the equation you need to think about as a threat to the USA. It refuses to allow its currency to float. That's a problem.

If China wants to develop oil reserves in Sudan, more power to them. If the USA wants to destroy China maybe it should remove it from "most favoured nation status" as a trading partner.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Originally posted by agamemnon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agamemnon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lol, finally a debate, i'm so bored![/b]

I know.. my class is soo boring right now, I need some sort of stimulation or I am going to fall a sleep.

Originally posted by Agamemnon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think there's a pretty huge difference between using an image of Osama in a touque to sell hats, and directly or indirectly contributing funds to terrorist groups. Unless you think they're the same thing... I don't.[/b]

I percieve it as associating with a terrorist. One is making profits off of a terrorists image. Basically idolizing Bin Laden, and turning him into pop culture.

Originally posted by Agamemnon
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Osama isn't making money off the touque sale. I don't see the 'other side of the coin' on that issue.

If I remember the obsure correlation that I thought of, then I will post it. Right now, I am just going to go with, "Your right".

Originally posted by Agamemnon
I'm (obviously) not a huge interventionist. I'm 'crying foul' because the US administration has talked tough about these kinds of issues, now I'm waiting to see if they 'flip-flop' by calling the situation in Iraq a more necessary and justified war than possible intervention in Darfur. The US has taken it upon themselves to 'root out evil', well, there's a whole lot of evil in Sudan, why don't they take them out? Is it because the military's resources is spread impossibly thin? Is it because the international community would basically disown the US as the leader of liberal-democracy? Is it because the US simply doesn't care or is actually benefiting from the current arrangement?

Iraq had been under sanctions for 10-12 years. With no evidence produced that their WMD had been destroyed. He had purposelly lied and decieved the world community. If he had been up front and at least shown/or proven that they had all been destroyed, and been a contributing force in the world community, the US probably would not of invaded Iraq. As far as to why the US hasn't done anything with Sudan, probably reasons 1 and 2. I am pretty sure they care, as they have brought it up in the UN. I don't imagine they are making any profit from the current situation.

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@
Why is there a need to 'invade' to solve the problem anyway? We never invaded South Africa, but there was still some pretty solid pressure raised in the form of sanctions. Is there no longer the will power among the international community to adhere to sanctions? Should the US be taking a leading role in creating and enforcing them?[/quote]Sanctions only work if everyone is on board. You get into trouble with "back-door" dealings that effectively render the sanctions useless. Sanctions in Iraq didn't work becuase nations circumvented them. They could work in Sudan, but that doesn't really help the people dying. If the ruling party has a stock pile (of money, food etc) built up, they can ignore sanctions and continue along their merry way. At least for a while. During this time, the people that suffer, are the same people that suffered before sanctions. Invasion basically speeds up the regeim removal process, but prolongs the rebuilding process. Sanctions prolong the regeim removal process, but rebuilding is essential non-existent, depending on the current situation.

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon
I guess the bottom-line question is, "Why is the international community not taking a more active role in the 'genocide' in Darfur". [/quote] I wish I knew. If they have their reasons, and they are valid, I would like to hear them. When the international community fails, I guess it falls upon a few nations to take the lead. But they don't get the support of the world community, becuase they have gone alone..Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Agamemnon]

You know . . . . that's pretty stupid. Desperate too.

In this world, anyone who wants to buy oil can do so. Can we agree on that?

The USA can't stop that. Can we agree on that?

I'm not exactly sure about that. I don't think North Korea can just buy oil from wherever it wants. Could South Africa during apartheid sanctions access the world's oil markets? I don't recall. I'd disagree, and say that not every state has _equal_ access to oil reserves. Just as in microeconomics, the theory of the system probably doesn't match up with the reality of it.

China's oil imports are up 40% in the last 12 months and a few other supply related issues (strikes in Nigeria and Norway, declining production in Venezuela, leal issues in Russia) has sent prices staggering higher. Can we agree on that?

I'd add lack of confidence in future reserves and production volume, but generally, we could agree on that.

The USA is a slave to oil. Can we agree on that?

Further to that, the USA is a slave to oil and vastly dependent on foreign sources for about 60% of its consumption I think. Can we agree on that?

Definitely.

Since the price of oil is based on a global market, can we agree that removing Chinese demand from the global equation via Sudan supplies would actually decrease demand elsewhere?

I think the author argues that the goal is to obfuscate Chinese development by limiting their access to oil, not to keep the price of oil down, though I may have missed something here.

Can we agree the USA economy would benefit from lower oil prices?

Maybe in the short term, but if world-wide oil prices are low, it gives China a massive advantage as cheap oil fueling their explosive economy would work out very well for them, probably a lot better in ratio than the United States. If the priority is to limit the Chinese from expanding, then lower oil prices, while better for the US economy, might not be better for the US... is what the crazy author might argue.

Can we also agree that China is sniffing around Canadian resource companies as a way to secure supplies as well? And is interested in a fair-sized investment in the Athabasca oil sands?

Can we therefore agree that China's interest in global commondities is just that - global?

Makes sense...

If China wants to develop oil reserves in Sudan, more power to them. If the USA wants to destroy China maybe it should remove it from "most favoured nation status" as a trading partner.

I suppose... though, again, if the priority is to limit Chinese power, it would probably make the most sense to tie the Chinese economy to the US', and make it dependent on US foreign investment and currency, so Most Favored Nation status makes sense from a realist perspective. Keep your enemies close and all that.

I think this author believes it makes perfect sense for the US to, on the one hand, embrace the Chinese economically to interlink the financial institutions (which are modern states lifeblood), and on the other hand do everything to screw around with their global ambitions (like allying w/ Taiwan, stopping the pipeline production, sticking around in Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, etc.)

[MolsonInBothHands]

Nothing of relevance to add to the discussion other than saying it hits home more than ever for me, I am sitting in Sudan right now. I am currently at the marine terminal, the end of its major pipeline. I just finished observing the filling of a 1.7 million barrel Greek tanker that will take its load to China.

There is Chinese laborers all over the place performing upgrades to the facility, and quite the assortment of nationalities assisting: Canadians, UK, South Africa, etc. I have been pretty far into the South, and it seems fairly stable there. I have never been remotely close to the Darfur region. This trip, I have seen increased security measures as the UN has set of shop in the Khartoum Hotel I stayed at when I arrived.

I get the impression that most of the locals here want the African Union to deal with the Darfur issues.