Sudan expels EU, Canadian diplomats
August 23rd, 2007This country Sudan apears to be a very interesting place but its leaders appear to me to be one of the cruelest and most corrupt on the Planet. Of course EU and Canada are meddling in the affairs of the Sudan, they are in the middle of a genocide. The excuse was that….
They were “involved in activities that constitute an intervention into the internal affairs of the Sudan, a matter that contradict their diplomatic duties and mission,” the spokesman said.
The spokesman also said the Foreign Ministry told the diplomats that “Sudan is keen to maintain the relation of cooperation linking it with the European Commission and with Canada.”
I try not to show my political views and frankly I’m not really a politically motivated person, but when I smell this kind of villainous sewage being constantly offered up as an excuse to why there has been nothing done to stop the killing of innocent people I get a little fired up.
I realize that often times government’s have to choose between the lesser of two evils in the process of just day to day affairs, both national and international.
Does the article even mention that the officials were concerned with or working to address the genocide? No. But, I assumed that based on the nature, reputation and historic behavior of the regime. Their reputation precedes them and quite frankly, rightly so.
Loading ...
Loading...
They were “involved in activities that constitute an intervention into the internal affairs of the Sudan, a matter that contradict their diplomatic duties and mission,” the spokesman said.
That statement has the sound and tenor of every Chinese UN diplomat.
The Sudanese simply have new tutors, and they aren’t Muslim, nor western.
Oh well. Discard the western model, pick up a new one. What’s surprising is that, – I would imagine – the Sudanese know less about the Middle Kingdom (China), and its ideals of being the arbiter between heaven and earth, than about Western democracy. (The Chinese regard their civilization as the ideal state between man and Heaven; hence, the term Middle Kingdom).
Mideasterners are yet to grasp the significance of how the Middle Kingdom treats those who don’t kowtow the line. The first clue to interest Muslims would be the way China treated Muslim Uighur rebels in western China.
A lot of that information is dying out, as the rebellion was snuffed out with the extermination of not only the rebels, but even their extended families.
I try not to show my political views and frankly I’m not really a politically motivated person, but when I smell this kind of villainous sewage being constantly offered up as an excuse to why there has been nothing done to stop the killing of innocent people I get a little fired up
As far as I can tell, Sudan didn’t have this kind of ethnic cleansing until after the Chinese made an entrance on the scene. As often happens, security services of new allies begin to share info and tactics. What is so surprising is that the Sudanese seem to have no clue as to how Chinese tactics have been applied before.
In this ever shrinking world it’s more evident than ever that local solutions to growing democracy cannot succeed in isolation. The power & wealth working against democracy is absolutely vast (China, the US, the UN). I tell you now fellow bloggers – the ONLY way for us to grow democracy is on the GLOBAL level as well. United we stand, divided we fall.
So how? Do we adopt an unambiguous set of rules by which we demand all good democracies to follow? Do we publish an online report card? Forget petitons – they’re worthless. Only one thing is clear to me – the internet is the best change we have EVER had to organize.
gary
Omid T (Iran/USA):
Finnpundit well said. This genocide comes from Chinese.
gary:
It’s a good policy but there’s a long long long …. way to that point. It starts from different viewpoint of democracy to almost anything. e.g. you can talk about everything but something, religion, country, race and ….! So before we start anything on the global level we should practice manythings on first Personal level and second local level.
Fariborz,
I don’t think our definition of democracy is that different. I want a job that puts food on the table and a roof over my head. I want the freedom to say and type what I like without fear of persecution. I want fair laws. I want fair elections that prevent leaders from becomming tyrants. And I want all these things for everybody. Last of all I want all the money currently spent on war machines to be spent on schools and science.
So is my vision of democracy really any different from yors? If the problem is one of symantecs, I’m happy if we just call it something else…how about peace on earth?
It would be nice if all these things would happen automatically if we practiced them on a ‘personal level’, but that’s not realistic. Dictators don’t just go away by ignoring them. It’s not even a local problem…it’s a global one.
gary
Gary,
I dont think countries would go to war unless they were to gain something in the end. Mostly, its for economic reasons rather that political ones. I can name a dozen countries in which we the US would have grounds to invade based on a number of international issues. But, those countries have little to offer in return. Little trade, not much natural resources, no strategic importance.
This ideal you speak of requires hard currency and resources. The house you want and the job too have to be constructed and sustained, and if you want that for everybody, we are talking about you times 350,000,000. Sadly, we live in a World where we have not yet cared to develop sustainable businesses and renewable energy sources.
Omid T wrote, “Does the article even mention that the officials were concerned with or working to address the genocide? No. But, I assumed that based on the nature, reputation and historic behavior of the regime. Their reputation precedes them and quite frankly, rightly so.”
Hoe do you know they were concerned about the genocide? Canada and the EU have not shown the same kind of “concern” for the Iraqis and Congolese. Why is that? Is it becuase the United States and other Western countries are invovled in the genocides of Iraq and the COngo? Is it okay for genocide to occur when it is being done in the name of oil and diamonds?
For democratic countries to be in a country and not express any concern or raise any noise about the genocide is unrealistic. Of course they were concerned.
And no, its not ok for it to be ok when oil and diamonds are involved.
Omid,
Ah, but that’s the key. “Countries” often do very bad things, but what if the people had a stronger hand in deciding these matters? What if YOU were consulted about each war the United States entered? My point is that the more we move towards democracy, the more we move towards rule by the people. And the more we move towards rule by the people (you and I), the less likely that a “country” will go to war based on dubious grounds.
Or am I wrong? Would you personally approve of an invasion based on economic gain?
gary
Omid,
The United Staes accuses Iran and Syria of fueling the violence in Iraq. Sudan accuses the United States and Israel of fuleing the violence in Darfur.
Is one coutnry telling the truth and the other is not? Are both lying or telling the truth?
Gary I admire your idealism.
Randall when the Sudan rejects international peace keepers what does that say?
Omid T,
This article says that they are accepting peacekeepers.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/31/un.darfur/index.html
Maybe Sudan was reluctant to accept the “peace keepers” because they feared it would become the next Iraq.
The Untied States, Canada, and the EU brought up the fact that Saddam Hussein had killed his own people as a reason to militarily intervene in Iraq. THey left out the fact that the Uniteed States and many other countires had sold chemical weapons to Saddam when he was committing his worst atrocities.
Yes I know Sudan has now accepted the peace keepers. But this is GENOCIDE, what took so long? Im not condoning or endorsing any invasion, but when a government is killing its own people in organized raids and rapes, there is little that can be said that would change my mind.
Omid T,
When foreign powers are fueling the violence they must be stopped too.
By the way some of those “peace keepers” come from countries in which there is violence going on, but for some reason that doesn’t seem to matter.
Here is an interesting article about Darfur and the peace keepers. http://allthingspass.com/journalism.php?jid=165
Here is a little more insight into the original subject…
Omid T, in the last link you put up it says “Sadig identified the detained politician as Mahmoud Hassanein from the Democratic Unionist Party.
Hassanein and 25 other people, including Mubarak al-Fadil, head of the opposition Umma Party for Reform and Renewal, are being detained in connection with an alleged plot to overthrow the government.
Sima Samar, the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Sudan, said this month she was concerned about the arrests of opposition politicians and urged more transparency from the government.”
The “Save Darfur” activists never present the complete story of what is going on in Sudan. All they know how to say is the Janjaweed Arabs are killing Black Africans. These activists couldn’t care less about black Aficans or they would have said something about the Congo. But when countries benefit from diamonds, other natural resources and weapon sales these deaths don’t matter.
Here is another presective on Darfur and other regions where atrocities are occcuring. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2145660,00.html
Very interesting…
Gary:
My point is that the more we move towards democracy, the more we move towards rule by the people. And the more we move towards rule by the people (you and I), the less likely that a “country” will go to war based on dubious grounds.
Or am I wrong?
You are wrong.
Democracy is not enough; the only way there will be more “rule by the people” is when free-market capitalism (which is the true expression of the will of the people, more so than the democratic ballot box) is uninterfered with by an overreaching state, democratic or not.
All talk of the primacy of democracy is useless, unless it is accompanied by the primacy of a free market. Talk to any third-world immigrant in the US, and they’ll tell you it’s not America’s democratic freedoms that brought them to the US, but America’s still unique promise that the state will interfere as little as possible in anyone’s pursuit of making money.
Free markets thrive best in democracies, and vice versa. You cannot separate the two, and you should discuss both of them in tandem when prescribing solutions to the world’s problems.
Ergo the unique situation in China. How long do you give it Finnpundit? 10yrs? 20yrs? Or will the people be content with just being rich and not free?
Ergo the unique situation in China
What’s your point? China fails on both counts, as a democracy, and as a free market.
Your fishing for models in all the wrong places.
Finnpundit,
I would agree that capitalism and democracy go well together, but…
That last part I very much disagree. Rule by the people is MORE a fuction of demcoracy than the economic system. If you disagree name a country that doesn’t have democracy, employs capitalism as the economic system, AND is ruled “by the people”. No such country exists.
Agreed.
Not necessary. In a society where people vote, they have the power to change the economic system. But the reverse is not true. A country like China does NOT give the people a choice of economic systems. And it does all the bad things that a dictatorship does. So in conclusion I agree very much that democracy and capitalism work well together, but you can definitely separate them when addressing the world’s problems.
gary
(sorry if this reply appears twice…I’m having problems with the forum software)
So in conclusion I agree very much that democracy and capitalism work well together, but you can definitely separate them when addressing the world’s problems.
Wrong. Separating the two compounds to the world’s problems. The two must work together, or neither will solve any problems. Democracy alone is not the solution. It only works well when it works with capitalism.
That is certainly borne by historical evidence.
Finnpundit,
You said:
You still haven’t sited an example of the “not” scenario. Tell me a country ruled by the people that embraces capitalism, but not democracy. And if you don’t have one, I think you’re underestimating the importance of democracy. I agree that both are needed and work well together, but my argument is that the emphasis needs to be on democracy, not capitalism. The one protects the other.
gary
No, the emphasis has to be on capitalism. Capitalism makes democracy possible. That’s why so many developing nations of the world are having such a hard time: they pretend to “elect” democratic governments, yet they preserve the prerogatives of the state (and the state is always an adversary of capitalism).
For the “not” scenario, I would cite certain monarchies in Buddhist southeast Asia of the past that took a laid back attitude in terms of socio-economic control, which suited the people just fine. The state’s interference was not needed in the marketplace; the monarch simply had to perform certain ritualistic duties to ensure peace between heaven and earth. The people in the marketplace took care of the business of running the country.
Sounds bizarre for us westerners, but it was possible, and it did exist, mostly in Burma, Thailand, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, and Tibet. However, the structures of these states were eventually weakened by western models, and today’s states in these nations do not resemble what was in the past.
Keep in mind there was a reason why medieval Europeans coveted “the riches of the East”. These lands truly were rich, mainly because of an incredibly thriving trade that was far more open and “globalistic” than Europe knew back then. And it was not democracy that made them rich.
It was free trade.