Showing posts with label darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label darfur. Show all posts

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Wolverine

It was another great debate. I was terribly impressed with the Obama McCain debate last week. I assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that tonight would be simply terrible. Far from it. Tonight was a very entertaining evening.

My favorite quote of the night comes, not from the candidates, but from Howard Fineman on MSNBC late tonight. Fineman said (and I'm working from memory here), "I've always wondered what a wolverine looked like. Tonight we saw it. Palin was like a wolverine chewing through plywood."

O.K. I thought Senator Joe Biden won the debate. He was knowledgeable, poised and articulate. He also had passion.

And I am so very pleased with Senator Biden's position and support for the people in Darfur. Senator Biden is willing to lay it all on the line. Darfur needs and deserves that kind of support from the United States.

I believe Biden is actually much stronger, more forceful and more committed than Barack Obama on many issues, especially the genocide in Darfur. Obama is very fortunate to have Biden on the ticket.

But, while Biden clearly won the debate, Governor Sarah Palin gained tremendous credibility. She was strong, articulate, forceful and just damned tough. She definitely got the better of Biden on several occasions.

Now I do believe that Obama's victory on November 4th is still on track unless McCain can somehow win landslide victories in both of the next two debates.

But Obama needs to hope the McCain campaign continues to very foolishly keep Palin under wraps. If the Republicans were to turn her loose, she might just chew through Obama's lead like wolverine through plywood.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Economic Pearl Harbor

The current Wall Street credit and lending crisis has been called an "economic Pearl Harbor" by mega-investor Warren Buffett. After doing as much study and research as I can, and talking with experts I trust, I believe Buffett's analogy is true.

President George Bush's speech last night was probably the very finest of his presidency. Bush was clear, logical and he didn't "talk down" to his audience as he often does. He told the true and exact story of the events leading up to the crisis and didn't play politics at all. That was a surprise.

In fact, Bush was unusually non-partisan. He clearly reached out to Democrats.

The only political note I will add is strictly my personal opinion that John McCain continues to handle this crisis about as badly as it is possible to handle it. His political "time out" and his proposal to delay the Friday night debate looks incredibly foolish.

An important part of the decision we voters must make in choosing the next President is watching how he or she handles events. McCain looks very bad here. Even if he is totally sincere in his desire to help solve this crisis, he still appears to be playing politics. As I often say, "Perception Becomes Reality."

If the McCain campaign was frightened by the polls yesterday, just wait until next week.

But let's get back to the real crisis. Warren Buffett is like the men and women who volunteered to join the military after Pearl Harbor. He immediately volunteered to serve with his
FIVE BILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT in Goldman Sachs.

From the Bloomberg article linked above:

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett, calling turmoil in the markets an "economic Pearl Harbor,'' said his $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is an endorsement of the Treasury's $700 billion bank rescue plan.

"I am betting on the Congress doing the right thing for the American public and passing this bill," Buffett said on cable channel CNBC today. "I certainly have a vote of confidence in Goldman and vote of confidence in Congress."

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke are pushing Congress to quickly approve the proposal to remove illiquid assets from the banking system. Buffett is buying a stake in New York-based Goldman after three of the investment bank's biggest competitors collapsed or were forced into emergency sales.

"I think the Treasury will pay back the $700 billion and make a considerable amount of money," Buffett said, adding that if he had $700 billion on the government's terms to buy distressed assets, he would. "Unfortunately, I'm tapped out."

Goldman rose $4.95, or 4 percent, to $130 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading after Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. agreed yesterday to the investment. It will pay 10 percent interest and give Buffett the right to buy $5 billion in common stock in the next five years at $115 a share.

Buffett, 78, has frequently scolded Wall Street for shoddy accounting and risky investments. He's investing in the most profitable U.S. investment bank a week after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. went bankrupt and Merrill Lynch & Co. sold itself to Bank of America Corp. Bears Stearns Cos. in March was absorbed by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

I have been a strong and unrelenting critic of Warren Buffett on these pages for his absolute failure to cease investments that are empowering the genocide in Darfur. But I certainly applaud his stepping forward today to help calm the markets and support America during this current crisis.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

A True Crime Against Humanity

You already know about the cyclone that hit the coast of Burma, now called Myanmar by the military junta that seized power years ago in a military coup. And you already know at least a little bit about the human disaster unfolding daily.

Can you possibly imagine the world's reaction if we actually could see the disaster? If there was television or Internet coverage, if there were bloggers on the scene and photographers and newspaper reporters, the world would be in shock.

The New York Times reports that International Pressure on Myanmar Junta Is Building, but the world community is actually reacting slowly and mostly with empty words and meaningless gestures.

    "In the two weeks since the cyclone hit, the junta has allowed in a modest amount of supplies from a number of nations, but relief workers say it is far short of what they need to fend off starvation and disease. The United Nations says only 20 percent of the survivors have received even rudimentary aid."

    "In some of the harshest comments, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain told the BBC on Saturday that a natural disaster “is being made into a man-made catastrophe by the negligence, the neglect and the inhuman treatment of the Burmese people by a regime that is failing to act and to allow the international community to do what it wants to do."

    "The French ambassador, Jean-Maurice Ripert, warned on Friday that the government’s refusal to allow aid to be delivered to people “could lead to a true crime against humanity,” according to The Associated Press."
The United Nations is impotent. And certain powerful nations, most especially China, generally prevent the UN from taking any action what-so-ever.

So we stand by, appalled at the death of over one hundred thousand people in Myanmar, many from disease, dehydration and starvation, and cry. But we've been watching tragedy after tragedy for decades and done nothing more than build monuments to the dead fifty years after any effort could have been made to save them.

Myanmar's leaders, like cockroaches, fear the light.

    "All foreigners have been expelled and banned from the hard-hit Irrawaddy Delta, even humanitarian aid workers with long experience in Myanmar. Impromptu aid convoys by local groups and private citizens — often with supplies donated by Burmese companies — have been turned back at military checkpoints."

    “These guys are xenophobic,” Shari Villarosa, the senior diplomat at the United States Embassy in Yangon, said in a recent interview, referring to the military leadership.

    "In addition to roadblocks and checkpoints, the junta’s shutdown of the country has included an Internet firewall that blocks most e-mail access. It also has disabled access to a number of computer programs that can evade firewalls, as well as access to dissident Web sites run by exiled Burmese."

    "Many residents of Myanmar get their daily news from the Burmese-language radio services run by broadcasters like the BBC and Voice of America. They listen to shortwave radios at home, away from neighborhood snitches. If they are discovered listening to the foreign stations, several Yangon residents said, they could be detained or beaten, or they could lose their jobs."
Today China continues to protect despots and tin dictators and completely ignore the genocide of hundreds of thousands in Darfur and now in Myanmar. While I don't want to prevent athletes from competing in the Beijing Olympics, I think it's time for all the world leaders to cancel their official visits.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Turning Our Future Over to China

There is news today about actions being taken by the Chinese government in preparation for the 2008 Beijing Olympics that I find so repulsive and sickening that I'm going to bury them deep into this blog entry. I am deeply saddened and totally disgusted.

But this is just another story out of hundreds that raise serious questions about how we, as a people and nation, interact with China. And, in fact, by any reasonable measure, we are turning our entire future over to China.

Ask yourself what is more disturbing: that food products, toys and now prescription medicine coming from China are tainted and poisoning our children and seniors?


Or that virtually 100% of our toys and significant portions of our food products and prescription drugs (not to mention clothes, jewelry, sporting goods, computers, electronics, furniture and housewares) are made in China and imported here?

Do we actually manufacture anything here anymore?

Even more disturbing is that China holds a gigantic portion of our ballooning national debt. If China called in our debt, the United States might be forced into effective bankruptcy and a depression that could last a lifetime.

Everyday we outsource our entire future to China. Now I'm a "free trade" kind of guy. But when you give this much control to a single country, it isn't free trade any more, it's indentured servitude.

I've written extensively that China has the ability to cripple or actually end the genocide in Darfur. China, through massive oil purchases that fund the genocide and a firm Security Council Veto that prevents the rest of the world from stopping the horror, controls the fate of two million people. And China continues to prove they just don't give a damn. Human suffering, rape, murder, torture, starvation? China just doesn't care.

Many people around the world can no longer tolerate China's greed and callous disregard for genocide. Steven Spielberg just resigned as an Artistic Advisor for the 2008 games.

"At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur," Spielberg explained.

With all this in mind, some might not even find this story important. But to me it's a clear and horrific example of how the Chinese government views every decision: cold, calculating, cruel and with absolutely no compassion.

As these the type of people with whom we should outsource or toys, food, drugs and debt?

What follows is from an investigative report by Simon Perry in the UK's Daily Mail:

Beijing's shocking death camp for cats

Thousands of pet cats in Beijing are being abandoned by their owners and sent to die in secretive government pounds as China mounts an aggressive drive to clean up the capital in preparation for the Olympic Games.

Hundreds of cats a day are being rounded and crammed into cages so small they cannot even turn around.

Then they are trucked to what animal welfare groups describe as death camps on the edges of the city.

The cull of Beijing's estimated 500,000 cat population is certain to provoke international outrage as it comes just over a year after the Chinese were criticised for rounding up and killing stray dogs across the country.

Animal welfare groups in China are already protesting, but their members fear punishment from the authorities.

Officials say people can adopt animals from the 12 cat pounds set up around the city, but welfare groups say they are almost impossible to get inside and believe few cats survive.

One cat lovers' group negotiated the release of 30 pets from one of the compounds in Shahe, north-west Beijing, but said they were in such a pitiful condition that half of them died within days of their release.

"These cats are being left to die. It is very inhumane," said the group's founder Yan Qi, who runs a sanctuary for cats.

Friday, February 29, 2008

Staying to Help in Iraq

I have the greatest admiration for Bono and Bob Geldof and Mia Farrow and Angelina Jolie and others who are able to transcend politics and move past the demagoguery and actually work constructively to improve the lives of oppressed people around the world.

There are all too many politicians in Washington and sideline commentators around the world for whom victory only means dealing a political defeat to their opposition.

So when
Bob Geldof praises George Bush's humanitarian activities in Africa and condemns the media for failing to give President Bush the credit he so richly deserves, I want to cheer. Not because I'm a Bush cheerleader, but because Bob Geldof actually places the welfare of the poor in Africa ABOVE politics!! Geldof has consistently looked for answers and help for Africans, not headlines or political points.

By the way, Geldof's article in this week's TIME MAGAZINE is a must read for everyone: Geldof and Bush: Diary From the Road. But, as usual, I've wondered off track....

Today I want to once again give praise and credit to Angelina Jolie, one of the brightest, most articulate and passionate people working today to help the poor, the oppressed and the forgotten. Jolie's work in Iraq this past week (and the past several years) is magnificent.

In a
Washington Post Op-Ed letter today, Jolie recounts the situation in Iraq and her recent visits with both the refugees in Iraq and with U.S. Army General David Petraeus, United Nation's High Commissioner António Guterres, and Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Jolie is a woman on a mission and she is succeeding.

Certainly Jolie is no fan of George Bush. She is deeply affected by the suffering of (by Jolie's estimates) over 4.5 million Iraqi refugees. She wants to help these people to return home safely and to rebuild their lives.

More than that, she wants and expects the United States and the United Nations to step up to the plate and provide financial and humanitarian assistance in this effort.

Jolie doesn't endorse the surge, she doesn't endorse the war. Jolie doesn't play politics. But she does recognize both the real situation on the ground and the need for the United States to play a significant role in rebuilding the lives of the people.

I think it's really significant that instead of sitting safely at home and running "General Betray Us" ads in the New York Times, Jolie goes and meets Petraeus and gets the support she needs to increase the humanitarian aid.

I hope you'll read Jolie's entire article:
Staying to Help in Iraq

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Excellence of Steven Spielberg

I want to thank Steven Spielberg with all my heart. He has exhibited rare courage and extraordinary moral leadership. And he has placed his principles and his concern for mankind above everything else.

Steven Spielberg is already a living legend. The Academy Award winning director's place in history is already assured. However, Spielberg could have capped his career with his opportunity to direct the entire artistic exposition of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It is a real testament to his skill and craftsmanship to have been chosen by the Chinese government and Chinese Olympic Organization as the Artistic Director.

But Steven Spielberg realized that China is not only failing to condemn the genocide in Darfur, but is actually funding and supporting the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

First Spielberg
attempted to put pressure on the Chinese Government through public comments and private negotiations. He became a very vocal critic of China's involvement.

As it became more and more obvious that his pressure was having little effect, Spielberg made the difficult decision to
resign his position with the 2008 Olympics

"I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue business as usual," he said in a statement.

Steven Spielberg was an artistic adviser to the Chinese Olympic Games
"At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."

More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million forced from their homes in the five-year conflict between Sudan's Arab-dominated government and Darfur's ethnic African rebels.

Human rights activists have accused China of being partly responsible for the trouble in Darfur because of its diplomatic backing of the Sudanese government.

Spielberg said: "Sudan's government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these ongoing crimes, but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more to end the continuing suffering there.

If only Warren Buffett had just one ounce of Spielberg's courage, honor and humanity, perhaps we could finally turn the situation in Dafur around.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Making Sense Out of Politics

I'd like to make some sense out of today's S-CHIP vote in the House of Representatives. I'm convinced there are dozens upon dozens of varying agendas going on there, not any of them actually aimed at helping children or improving medical care.

In reality today ended with a meaningless stand-off between Democrats who "think they have a winning issue" and Republicans who "think they have a winning issue." How uncool is that?

The financial division between Republicans and Democrats is really rather small. And the current S-CHIP program is generally regarded as good, although it is unevenly implemented and virtually ignored by almost 1/3rd of the families who could enroll their children.

Nobody brings this fact up because neither Congress nor the President can actually make people become good and caring parents. Still I would have loved to hear Congressman Pete Stark rail about that instead of making bizarre, stupid, insensitive, meaningless and inflammatory statements about President Bush about the increasingly successful military occupation of Iraq.

Which is something else I don't understand. The near brilliant surge strategy of General Petraeus is really working. By virtually any objective or subjective measure, the situation in Iraq is improving. Why doesn't everybody admit that and then continue the real debate about the wisdom of a continued occupation and viable exit strategies.


Why do most Democrats have to mimic Harry Reid and state "I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything," when it so very clear that Reid is simply wrong?

Reid's idiotic approach allows Republicans to state with obvious accuracy that the Democrats are "invested in defeat."

Why can't my fellow Democrats say, "Wow! The military is doing a great job. And General Petraeus is a genius. Can we go home now?"

I can't even follow Reid's logic of implying that we're losing and our enemies are kicking our butts, so we should give up. That argument not only flies in the face of the current events, it turns the public so strongly against Congress that Bush ends up look better than the Congress.

But let's return to our discussion of Darfur.
Oh, you didn't even know we were talking about Darfur, you thought we were talking about S-CHIP. But we really weren't. You see Congress doesn't actually give a rat's ass about S-CHIP. If they did they would compromise with President Bush who has already signalled he will compromise generously.

Nope Congress really doesn't care about S-CHIP, no matter how big the crocodile tears shed by Pete Stark. Nope. Congress members just want a "winning issue." That's also why Congress refuses to solve the Social Security Disaster, which is now only about 5 years away.

And it's why this article today is about Darfur. You see Darfur is only about death, war, murder, rape, starvation, suffering, slavery, corruption and oil. Not a single "winning issue" the entire deck of cards.

So Darfur is up to you, the readers of this blog. Congress isn't ever going to actually pass the
The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (SADA). Not a "winning issue." Don't even hold your breath waiting for hearing.

But you ultimately have a lot of power. Tell your mutual funds to divest PetroChina, a Chinese oil company whose parent company, CNPC, fills the coffers of the Sudanese government and helping fund the its actions in Darfur.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE.

If you'll put enough pressure on Wall Street and on Congress saving lives might actually become a "winning issue."

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Genocide

We all need to laugh at Congress this week for their weak and tentative posturing around the issue of the 90 year old, historically well documented, GENOCIDE of the ONE AND ONE HALF MILLION Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during World War One.

Some members of Congress want to try, once again, to pass a Resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide.

That is not to say their aren't real and compelling reasons to avoid the Congressional Resolution before the House this month. Turkey is a rare and important ally in the middle east and a potentially powerful enemy in Kurdish Iraq. And Turkey is deeply offended by the resolution.

Why then should we laugh at the Congressional debate over the Armenian Genocide. Only to keep from crying.

Fighting, stopping or even protesting Genocide is the biggest joke on earth. The safest thing any petty dictator or country can do today is kill a few hundred thousand of their neighbors.

Genocide is generally supported by the world's strongest nations. China, India, even President Bush's more globally active United States, either actively support the on going GENOCIDE in Darfur, provide financial aid or United Nations cover to the perpetrators, or stand by and watch the death and destruction of one ethnic group by another.

So we once again mount a massive political battle in Congress capturing emotions, political favors and ethnic support over a 90 year old atrocity. No matter what Congress does this next month, not one Armenian life will be saved. That tragic genocide all took place 90 years ago.

Turkey does need to face it's past. And the so-called democracy in Turkey actually has laws in place that can condemn people to prison for even using the word Genocide in public when discussing the "war." Change is coming in Turkey, reporters on NPR tell us (be sure to listen to this excellent and in depth report), but the change is coming slowly. Ninety years is slow.

So be sure to drop a note to the displaced Darfur mother of a child starving to death in a refugee camp in Chad this morning that the US Congress will debate the issue in about 90 years. But it's unlikely they will actually do anything.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Courage and Honor: President Jimmy Carter


This should have been the lead story on the news this evening, but I don't think it got any coverage on most network or cable news networks. The world may be watching, but America seems to have A.D.D. (Attention Deficit Disorder).

While Harry Reid and 41 Democrat Representatives felt the most important issue on earth was condemning Rush Limbaugh for things he never said, the rest of the world was riveted by the unfolding events in Darfur. President Jimmy Carter led a delegation of the world's most respected human rights leaders in an attempt to bring aid and comfort to the refugees of the on-going genocide.

At 83 years old, President Carter has the strength and the courage and the honor to take on Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and the very military who continue the unabated violence.

As Carter attempted to visit refugees he went head to head with the chief of the feared Sudanese secret police. And Carter refused to back down.

Naturally, all U.S. News broadcasts covered the Rush Limbaugh non-event continuously, darting mindlessly from Representative to pundit to Iraqi veteran to television commentator. If you watched the U.S. television programs you would never know that President Carter was still alive, let alone that he led a delegation to Darfur.

Thank God former President Jimmy Carter can stay on task and knows the real priorities and the real issues facing the world today. And thank God President Carter has real courage and real honor. Every American should be proud.

ALFRED de MONTESQUIOU, writing for The Associated Press, tells the story.

    KABKABIYA, Sudan - Former President Jimmy Carter confronted Sudanese security services on a visit to Darfur Wednesday, shouting "You don't have the power to stop me!" at some who blocked him from meeting refugees of the conflict.

    The 83-year-old Carter, in Darfur as part of a delegation of respected international figures known as "The Elders," wanted to visit a refugee camp.
    But the U.N. mission in Sudan deemed that too dangerous.Instead, Carter agreed to fly to the World Food Program compound in the North Darfur town of Kabkabiya, where he was supposed to meet with ethnic African refugees, many of whom were chased from their homes by militias and the Arab-dominated government's forces.
    But none of the refugees showed up and Carter decided to walk into the town — a volatile stronghold of the pro-government janjaweed militia — to meet refugees too frightened to attend the meeting at the compound.
    He was able to make it to a school where he met with one tribal representative and was preparing to go further into town when Sudanese security officers stopped him.
    "You can't go," the local chief of the feared Sudanese secret police, who only gave his first name as Omar, ordered Carter. "It's not on the program!"
    "We're going to anyway!" an angry Carter retorted as a small crowd began to gather around. "You don't have the power to stop me."
    "We've got to move, or someone is going to get shot," warned one of the U.N. staff accompanying the delegation.
    Carter's traveling companions, billionaire businessman Richard Branson and Graca Machel, the wife of former South African President Nelson Mandela, tried to ease his frustration and his Secret Service detail urged him to get into a car and leave.

    "I'll tell President Bashir about this," Carter said, referring to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
    Branson said some refugees had slipped notes in his pockets.
    "We (are) still suffering from the war as our girls are being raped on a daily basis," read one of the notes, translated from Arabic, that Branson handed to the AP.
    The note said that on Sept. 26, a group of girls had been raped, one of them a 10-year-old, and that a refugee had been shot two days ago. Branson said it had been handed over by an ethnic African man.
    "All (refugees) living in the town of Kabkabiya are vulnerable prisoners who live under injustice and intimidation," the note also said.
    For the most part, the refugees here appeared too frightened to speak to the visiting delegation. The single refugee representative Carter managed to meet at the school pleaded with an AP reporter out of earshot of Sudanese security for Carter to ensure he would not face government retaliation. Carter then went back to the man and wrote down his name, assuring him he would look out for his safety.
    Most of the community leaders the mission met during its two-day visit to Darfur appeared to be government-vetted, and several ethnic African delegates told AP they had been intimidated by authorities into turning down invitations from "the Elders."
    "This illustrates the challenges that communities and humanitarian workers face in Darfur," said Orla Clinton, spokeswoman for the U.N. Mission in Sudan, who witnessed the incident.
    More than 200,000 people have been killed since the conflict in the western Sudanese region of Darfur began in 2003 when ethnic African rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, accusing it of decades of discrimination. Sudan's government is accused of retaliating by unleashing a militia of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed — a charge it denies.
    The visit by "The Elders," which is headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureates Carter and Desmond Tutu, is largely a symbolic move by a host of respected figures to push all sides to make peace.
    Tutu led a separate group to a refugee camp in South Darfur, where he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio the joint African Union-U.N. force was needed immediately.
    "It's awful that AMIS (African Mission in Sudan) should be allowed to be here when it is so inadequately equipped — I mean they couldn't evacuate their injured from the camp after the attack because they don't have military helicopters," he said, referring to the weekend attack on the African Union base.
    Carter accused the international community of neglect for taking too long to mobilize over Darfur.


The problem is that we Americans can't be bothered with little matters like Darfur. Not when there is this critical matter of Rush Limbaugh's mid-day blathering.

And the American television news can't break-away from the made up Limbaugh non-story long enough to even mention President Carter's very heroic efforts to end the real violence, real deaths, real rapes and real starvation in Darfur.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

The World is Watching......

The world is watching.

Tragically, that is all the world does. Watch.

Watching seems to be what we world citizens do best. It's certainly what nations do best. For sure it's what the United Nations does best.

In Myanmar or Darfur, we love to watch. Sometimes we even posture and preen and puff up our chest. It's a sort of voyeuristic use of power.

We stare in through whatever window is available, usually the television screen, and we shake our heads in disbelief. We ask "Why doesn't somebody help? Just not us."

We are voyeurs, addicted to rape and war and murder. We can't seem to get enough. How else can you explain our failure to stop it? We must need it. We must want it.

In a distant land we can't even find on a map it's all so sanitary.... so clean. The people look so strange. We can't understand a thing they say. It's not like it's one of us.

And the numbers. They are so sanitary, too. They are so big we cannot relate to them. 100,000. 200,000. 400,000. With numbers like that it's just not real. It's more like the score of a video game.

So we do nothing but watch. We take an extreme nationalistic, racist, xenophobic stance to defend our inaction. Not just Americans (although we may be the worst), but virtually every country on earth claims the deaths of thousands isn't worth the life of "one of our own."

Even as the United Nations finally approves a peace keeping force for Sudan and Darfur, no country will offer manpower to fill the ranks. So thousands continue to die and hundreds of thousands continue to suffer. Millions are displaced.

And we watch. Voyeurs to injustice. Voyeurs to suffering. Voyeurs to genocide.

It's no wonder the military junta in Myanmar feel so very safe. They all will sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge that the world is watching.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Steven Spielberg Pressures Chinese Over Darfur

Unlike the disgraced Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg isn't afraid to place principle above profits in the fight to provide aid and security to the people of Darfur.

ABC News reports this evening:

Steven Spielberg, under pressure from Darfur activists, may quit his post as artistic adviser to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, unless China takes a harder line against Sudan, a representative of the film director told ABC News.

China, Sudan's largest oil customer and perennial defender, has come under renewed scrutiny in the lead up to the Olympics, as the country juggles its need for cheap energy with its desire to host a trouble-free games.

As celebrities-cum-activists increasingly link the ongoing genocide with China's patronage, some — most notably and vocally, the actress Mia Farrow — have accused Spielberg of complicity, by not using his prominence and position to pressure the Chinese government to change course.

"Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994 founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling Darfur's genocide?" Farrow and her son Ronan wrote in a March Wall Street Journal editorial.

In that same piece, "The Genocide Olympics," Farrow compared Spielberg to the Nazi director Leni Riefenstahl whose film "Olympia" was a paean to the 1936 Berlin Games.

"Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games," Farrow wrote.

Days after Farrow's editorial, Spielberg wrote an open letter to Hu Jintao, president of China. "I am writing this letter to you, not as one of the overseas artistic advisors to the Olympic Ceremonies, but as a private citizen who has made a personal commitment to do all I can to oppose genocide. … Accordingly, I add my voice to those who ask that China change its policy toward Sudan and pressure the Sudanese government to accept the entrance of United Nations peacekeepers to protect the victims of genocide in Darfur," Spielberg wrote.

Excluding that letter, Spielberg and his representatives have, until now, been tight-lipped on what additional action the director might take.

"Steven will make a determination in the next few weeks regarding his work with the Chinese. Our main interest is ending the genocide. No one is clear on the best way to do this," Spielberg's spokesman Andy Spahn told ABCNEWS.com.


Unlike Warren Buffett, who made it crystal clear that he would look aside and not consider the plight of the people of Darfur in his stock investment decisions, Spielberg has made it known he is considering his options concerning continuing involvement with the Chinese.

No doubt Spielberg hope just the mention of his possible departure will bring some movement to the Chinese government. Virtually all Darfur activists believe the Chinese could force Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers in a matter of days.

I hope Steven Spielberg will continue his efforts on behalf of the people of Darfur.


TECHNORATI TAGS:


DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Friday, July 20, 2007

Darkness

There is a real depression settling over those of us who have long worked to help the beleaguered people of Darfur. Senator Barack Obama was viewed by many of us as the hope for a new America. An America that cared. An America that helped those in need. An America that would put principle above politics. An America that would stand strong against oppression at home and abroad.

I've receive a dozen emails in the last few hours from my friends and allies in the Save Darfur movement. We all hope and pray Barack Obama misspoke. We all hope and pray Barack was misquoted.

Alas, it seems the news reports are correct. His words did speak intelligently about diplomacy and international cooperation.

But those effort by the French and, much more recently the Americans have failed the people of Darfur. The SAVE DARFUR Coalition is now correctly DEMANDING UN INTERVENTION.

Obama certainly didn't help.

So below I'm reprinting the impassioned attack on Obama by (of all people)
Scott Malensek over at Flopping Aces. Obama deserves these harsh words and a lot worse.


Wow, say goodbye to the Greatest Generation, and hello to the weakest generation.

Senator Obama (D) has echoed the Democrats' view on war: genocide isn't worth fighting against. It's why American troops don't get sent to Sudan. It's why American soldiers don't go to Congo, and it's why Americans should leave Iraq. Apparently President Clinton was right to ignore the machete massacre of millions in Rwanda, and President Roosevelt (D) was wrong to wage war against an enemy that never attacked the US, and had no operational or cooperational ties with the Japanese who did. Genocide is permitted and accepted by Democrats. Yep. That's the face of the new Democratic Party.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

Perhaps the "Progressives" (often in love with nuanced reasoning) would only support action against a genocide if it the action were supported and called for by the UN? Nope. Sorry, but that rules out Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, and Iraq. All four had UN resolutions calling for intervention to prevent genocide. Even the Iraq War (referring to the post-Saddam occupation here) is authorized-even compelled-by a series of UN resolutions that essentially demand that the US and others who invaded must stay in Iraq until it is secure and stable enough to stand on its own. Senator Obama either is ignorant of the myriad of UN resolutions that have called for intervention against genocide, or he's taken the same position often accused of President Bush: he's ignoring the will of the international community; thumbing his nose at the UN.

Perhaps Senator Obama and others believe that problems which are far away-like genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Iraq-are not American problems. They're so far away as to be irrelevant. It's not like they're happening in Mexico or Canada where our completely undefended, unprotected, and ill guarded borders would protect us. History bears them correct, right?

The US had no business trying to stabilize a civil war in Lebanon in the 1980's, so US Marines left, and the only effect was to turn Osama Bin Laden from rich playboy to Jihadi bent on holy war with the west-including the US.

The US was right in ending support for Afghanistan after the Russians left, and the ensuing anarchy which brought about the Taliban and Al Queda was their-fault not America's, and people in Afghanistan as well as Holy Warriors everywhere understand that.

The US was right in running from anarchy in Somalia as the only effect was to prove Osama and other holy warriors' idea that the US is a paper tiger that will run rather than fight.

The US was right not to respond to the USS Cole attack as the only effect was to create an Al Queda recruiting video.

Really, one wonders if regressive "progressives" learned anything from World War II, Pearl Harbor, and 911? If genocide isn't worth fighting to end, then is anything, and if deliberately, purposefully letting millions of people be slaughtered in genocides isn't the greatest human sin of omission, then what is greater?



Malensek may be a tad too bombastic and a little too partisan. He wrongly claims Obama is the face of all Democrats. But Obama is dead wrong in his comments and, much worse, he is wrong in his principles.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SUDAN

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Genocide Olympics


Perhaps it is time to hit China where it really hurts!

Last week China's Ambassador to the United States
wrote a letter to the U.S. Members of Congress:
“There are…talks of linking the Darfur issue with the Beijing Olympic games in 2008…I hope that you will fully recognize and appreciate China’s positive role on the Darfur issue and use your influence to help the US Congress and public put things in perspective.”

Today Amnesty International released this Report showing that China and Russia were supplying arms to Sudan for the use against its own citizens in Darfur violating a U.N. arms embargo.
Amnesty International writes "The irresponsible transfer of arms to Sudan and its neighbors are a significant factor in the massive human rights catastrophe in Darfur and its spread into eastern Chad."
Amnesty continues its report by emphasizing that China and Russia, two of the five permanent Security Council members, should have been aware that their military equipment was "deployed by the Sudanese armed forces and militia for direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks in Darfur."
At least 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been chased from their homes since 2003 when ethnic African rebels in the Sudanese region of Darfur rose up against the Arab-dominated central government located in Sudan's capital, Khartoum.
These are direct quotes form the full report available on-line here.

Arms, ammunition and related equipment are still being transferred to Darfur in the west of Sudan for military operations in which extremely serious violations and abuse of human rights and international humanitarian law are committed by the Sudanese government, the government-backed Janjawid militias(1) and armed opposition groups.
This report describes the arming process and its effects on the people of Darfur and neighbouring eastern Chad, many of whom have been forcibly displaced. It provides details of violations of the United Nations arms embargo on Darfur that occurred during January to March 2007.
Amongst other things, it shows how the Government of Sudan violates the UN arms embargo and disguises some of its military logistics operations in Darfur, and what arms supplied to Sudan from China and Russia - two Permanent Members of the Security Council - have been used for violations of the Security Council’s own mandatory arms embargo.

Sudan imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition from the People’s Republic of China, as well as nearly $57 million worth of parts and aircraft equipment and $2 million worth of parts of helicopters and aeroplanes from China, according to the data from Sudan for 2005, the last available trade figures. During a meeting in Beijing, the Defence Minister of China reportedly told Sudan's joint chief of staff that military relations had been "developing smoothly" and said: "[We] are willing to further develop military co-operation between our two countries in all areas."(17) The Chinese company AviChina Industry and Technology recently delivered six K-8 military training/attack aircraft to the Sudanese Air Force and a further six will follow soon, according to a military magazine.(18) Beijing Aviation Science and Technology Co. (BASC), a subsidiary of the China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), has announced on its website that it has developed and produced flight simulators for Sudan for their K-8S jets.(19) These simulators were delivered to the Sudan Air Force in 2005.(20) The K-8S is widely used as a basic training jet for fighter pilots. Some of the Sudanese Air Force fighter pilots will eventually graduate onto the NAMC Q-5 ‘Fantan’ after undergoing basic training on the K-8S. The export version of the Q-5 is known as the A-5 ‘Fantan’.(21) Amnesty International is concerned that the Sudan Air Force has transferred these jet bombers to Darfur (see photograph and details below) without authority from the UN Sanctions Committee and is highly likely to use these newly acquired jets, as it has other aircraft, and the acquisition of expertise to fly the jets supplied from China, for indiscriminate attacks in Darfur in violation of the UN arms embargo and international humanitarian law, thus also posing serious questions about the systems of accountability and training provided to the Sudan Air Force to ensure respect for that universal law.

In 2005, the Russian Federation exported to Sudan $21 million worth of aircraft and associated equipment including spare parts and $13.7 million of helicopters, adding to its substantial arms deliveries in previous years.(22) The use of various types of military helicopters, particularly the Russian Mi-24 helicopter gunships acquired by the Sudan Air Force, to launch attacks in Darfur in which civilians are subjected to indiscriminate fire is of particular concern to Amnesty International, as outlined further below.

China is not fit to host the Olympics.

And, while I'm on the subject,
Warren Buffett is not fit to continue as Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Divest Warren Buffett

Somewhere on his way to being a legend, Warren Buffett lost his humanity.

I don't think Buffett is greedy. His generosity is legendary.

But I do think he, like millions of Americans (and people around the world) has simply lost track of his priorities. I know Warren Buffett, just like all of us, had shed many tears over the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

Warren Buffett, this is just like Virginia Tech..... multiplied by 6,250. What is it worth to end this tragedy?

From Fortune Magazine. As always, editing and emphasis are mine. As always, you are encouraged to read the entire original article.


Warren Buffett and Darfur

Sudan divestment movement targets Berkshire Hathaway's China oil holdings, reports Fortune's Marc Gunther.

By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writerc
April 18 2007: 4:42 PM EDT



NEW YORK (Fortune) --
Could Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway be helping to support genocide in Darfur?

The Sudan divestment movement, which has persuaded dozens of universities and state governments to sell holdings of companies doing business in Sudan, says Berkshire (Charts, Fortune 500) should do the same. Buffett is resisting. The legendary investor will tangle with his critics over the issue on May 5 at the company's annual meeting in Omaha.


Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is being urged to divest his company's PetroChina holdings.

Divestment campaign targets mutual funds, and the nation's largest mutual fund company is the first target, says Fortune's Marc Gunther.

It should be a fascinating debate. Berkshire has become a target of the divestment campaign because it owns 2.3 billion shares of PetroChina Co., a subsidiary of the state-controlled China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC). CNPC has extensive operations in Sudan; it owns a major stake in Sudan's national oil consortia.

China and Sudan are engaged in a marriage of convenience. For its part, China gets oil - Beijing purchased more than half of Sudan's oil exports in 2005. China's growing demand for energy has led the Chinese to cultivate close relationships with many oil-rich African nations.

In return, Sudan gets money, weapons and political backing from China. Because about 70 to 80 percent of Sudan's oil revenue is funneled into its military, China's oil assets in Sudan are "an undeniable and well-documented enabler of Khartoum's genocidal policy in Darfur," according to the Sudan Divestment Task Force.


As a member of the United Nations Security Council, China has also blocked efforts by the U.S. and Britain to apply stricter sanctions against Sudan. Between 200,000 and 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur, and millions more have been thrown out of their homes.

Divestment activists say "targeted divestment" - aimed at companies like CNPC that have a business relationship with the government and have not taken a stand against the genocide - can help influence Sudan. The logic of this argument persuaded universities including Harvard, Yale and Stanford, the states of California, Illinois, New Hampshire and Iowa, and numerous religious institutions, to adopt divestment policies.

So-called socially responsible mutual funds also have sold their holdings in PetroChina. The Calvert family of funds went further, creating an online report aimed at helping people stop the violence in Darfur.

Harvard's decision to divest PetroChina is particularly significant because its $30 billion endowment fund rarely takes such action. Explaining its decision, The Harvard Corporation said:

"Although Harvard maintains a strong presumption against the divestment of stock for reasons unrelated to investment purposes, we believe that the case for divestment in this instance is persuasive."

To his credit, Buffett has responded publicly (his response is available for download here, as a PDF file) to the divestment campaign and he has welcomed debate at the annual meeting - although he is under no obligation to do so. This is in contrast to Fidelity Investments, which remains a target of a divestment drive.

In Buffett's response, he argues, first, that PetroChina itself has no holdings in Sudan and that it does not control CNPC. "Subsidiaries have no ability to control the policies of their parent," he says.

He goes on to say that CNPC cannot "withdraw" its assets from Sudan since its assets consist of oil in the ground and the fixed infrastructure to transport and refine it. Should China sell those assets to the Sudanese government, the government would still be able to sell its oil on the world market. "Proponents of the Chinese government's divesting should then ask the most important question in economics, 'And then what?'" Buffett writes.

It's a fair question. Here are two possible answers. The first is that Sudan would try to buy out the Chinese, although the Khartoum government is already in deep debt. A second possibility is that other major investors in Sudan's oil, the state-owned oil companies of Malaysia and India, would step in. Either way, severing the economic ties between China and Sudan would have a significant benefit. As the Sudan Divestment Task Forces writes in response to Berkshire's response:

"The sale of CNPC's Sudan assets would remove China's economic incentive to enable Sudan's ongoing genocide. Even short of forcing divestiture of its Sudan assets, pressure on CNPC is likely to change China's approach towards Sudan diplomacy, especially given how highly China prizes its Sudan oil assets."

In truth, China is unlikely to divest, even under pressure from Berkshire. But the Chinese have shown lately that they may be vulnerable to pressure. A high-ranking Chinese official recently traveled to Darfur and urged the Sudanese government to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. He appears to have done so after Hollywood activists - notably Mia Farrow - threatened to link the 2008 Beijing Olympics to the genocide. Film director Steven Spielberg, who is an artistic advisor to the Olympics, also condemned the genocide in a letter to President Hu Jintao of China.

So Buffett could, at a minimum, engage in discussions with PetroChina. He could ask that PetroChina and CNPC to use their influence to ask Sudan to allow in peacekeepers. He could speak to the Indians and the Malaysians and ask them to work with him. If all of that fails, he could then sell the stock - noisily.

Warren Buffett is, after all, much more than one of the world's great investors. He is a decent, generous man of unquestioned integrity. When he speaks, much of the world listens. He now has a platform to speak on behalf of victims of genocide. Why not take it?




"Warren Buffett is, after all, much more than one of the world's great investors. He is a decent, generous man of unquestioned integrity. When he speaks, much of the world listens. He now has a platform to speak on behalf of victims of genocide. Why not take it?" It was worth repeating!

Why Not indeed?

TECHNORATI TAGS:


DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Lost in the News


Pick your fight. Take your stand.

What is your priority? Where do you invest time and money? Where is your heart and soul?

The Supreme Court Ruling on Partial Birth Abortion?

The Albert Gonzales/Bush Administration firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors?

The massacre at Virginia Tech and, now the deranged video tape of the killer, reaching out from the grave to exact the ultimate revenge on us all?

The massive suicide murders of 200 in Iraq yesterday? Think of it as Virginia Tech times Six! Twelve more killed today, by the way.

I could easily list twenty more stories. Or thirty. Or more.

They are all important. But please take a few moments of your day and consider the horror in Sudan and Darfur. I've compiled the story below from multiple press reports. All are linked at the end of this story:



Sudan's Youth Endure "Unspeakable Abuse" as the World Stands By

Children in Sudan are press-ganged, coerced to join armed groups, raped and used as forced labor or sex slaves, according to a new report by humanitarian groups.

The report, Sudan's Children at a Crossroads, concentrates mainly on Darfur, where a conflict has been raging for four years, and southern Sudan, emerging from 20 years of war.

"Children in Sudan continue to endure some of the most inhumane treatment found anywhere in the world," said Kathleen Hunt, chair of the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict, on Wednesday.

"Despite the end of the war in the south and recent signs of hope for a strengthened peacekeeping force in Darfur, many Sudanese children are not faring any better than they were four years ago," Hunt told a news conference on the report, compiled by six humanitarian organizations.

While Sudan's military continues to deny the presence of children in its ranks, the report said its representatives have acknowledged that youth from other armed groups have recently been incorporated into the government armed forces.

In Darfur, most rebel and militia groups recruit children, including the pro-government Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, the rebel Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army.

While reports of rape and maiming are prevalent in Darfur, Sudanese girls from other areas have been forced into prostitution or into domestic service in and out of Sudan.

Boys as young as 4 or 5 years old "have been trafficked to Arab Gulf countries to work as camel jockeys and beggars," Watchlist said.


In the latest violence, a rebel group accused Khartoum's troops and militia on Tuesday of killing scores of people in a cluster of north Darfur villages -- though the army denied the charge and blamed the fighting on "normal" tribal clashes.

Meanwhile western powers pressed Sudan on Tuesday to allow a big U.N. peacekeeping force into violence-torn Darfur, but the United Nations was struggling to put together even a smaller unit that Khartoum has agreed to.

The United States and Britain said that while Sudan's acceptance on Monday of an interim U.N. reinforcement of the African Union force in Darfur was important, many more peacekeepers were needed for a total strength of up to 20,000.

At least 200,000 people have been killed since 2003 in ethnic and political conflict triggered by a rebellion in the western Sudanese region.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in Chad the African Union commander in Darfur had told him his 5,000 troops were not enough to police an area as big as France where rebels were battling Sudanese government forces and Janjaweed militias.

At the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was encouraged by Sudan's acceptance of a "heavy support package" of 3,000 extra peacekeepers, but "the more important thing is how to implement these agreements into action".

The United Nations and the African Union want to complete the interim package "and move on to the third phase, finally deploying a hybrid operation in Darfur," he told reporters after two days of talks with AU chairman Alpha Oumar Konare.

The proposed 20,000-strong force is known as a "hybrid."

But even the 3,000 peacekeepers Sudan has agreed to accept, who would staff control centers but not join infantry units, may take six months to recruit and deploy, U.N. diplomats say.

"I think there will be a real problem of timing ... It depends on who now comes forward as troop contributing countries," British Ambassador and current Security Council president Emyr Jones Parry told reporters.

"That'll take a while to establish and then how soon can they get there? ... The hope is that the (peacekeepers) there will remain, but that others will come on board."

Also unresolved is the question of funding. Cash will have to come from voluntary donations until the U.N. force arrives, at which time all U.N. members will be assessed for the financing. But first Sudan needs to allot land for camps and provide water needs.

Britain's Blair said if Sudan did not agree to the U.N. package, "a strong resolution with sanctions" would be needed.

The apparent deal on the interim package, however, has temporarily defused talk of sanctions and in New York, both Jones Parry and Wolff dodged questions on the issue.




In my opinion the actions by the world's so-called leaders amounts to nothing more than posturing and preening. China is chafing under the threats, mostly from French Presidential Candidates, to boycott the 2008 Bejing Olympics. But they still prevent any meaningful United Nations sanctions.

And while President Bush yesterday announce the strongest unilateral sanctions against Sudan, and has continued to place diplomatic pressure on Khartoum, economic leaders like Warren Buffett refuse to divest stock in the Chinese oil companies that fuel Sudan's continued genocide.

Is it progress that a few American politicians at least try to make the news with posturing speeches or congressional confrontations.

Perhaps.

Unless you're a six year old sex slave.

Resources:
Reuters Alert Net and Yahoo News (via Reuters)

You can help to stop the Genocide in Darfur: Save Darfur

TECHNORATI TAGS:

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us