Workers' Liberty

This article comes awfully close to 'endorsing imperialist intervention', doesn't it? Thought that was a no-no for the AWL?

But if you've got the courage to state that openly in the face of leftwing public opinion, then my respect for your organisation has gone up a notch.

We do not endorse "imperialist intervention" (whatever that means in Darfur).

To expand a bit.

We say we have no confidence in UN interventions. Why? Because UN interventions are not really about guaranteeing peace. I think we can work that out based on past experience! If they were about guaranteeing peace — in practice defending one group of people against more powerful aggressors — than UN troops would be given the means to guarantee peace. They haven't been in the past. As we say, remember Sberenica!

So we do not support the UN’s programme/intervention in Sudan, (i.e. it backs up the EU/US policy in Sudan. Which is what exactly? Well it is less to do with the genocide in Darfur and more to do with calming the country so that the resource-rich south can be fully plundered. Darfur is a problem for the west primarily as a security issue. We cannot endorse the overall policy of the west/UN?

But we also have a concrete assessment of what is going on and what might happen. An intervention in Sudan may have some immediate helpful consequences for the people of that region, i.e. the Sundanese government — wanting investors etc — might be compelled to think the game is up... backing the janjaweed in the way that it has can no longer go on. Only an idiot would be indifferent to that possibility and would refuse to see that as, or say that would be, a good thing.

On the other hand the Sudanese have been here before. Lots of threats from the UN, resolutions etc, but so far… just 7,000 AU troops. And this is a very brutal Islamist military regime, who knows whether outside persuasion will work.

But to repeat — as difficult as it is to predict — to a limited extent and for its own reasons a UN intervention might have good consequences. To say that is not to endorse the intervention but just to state the obvious, rational, sane thing.

Dave -

I think the point of the article is that, while we wouldn't "endorse", advocate or call for UN troops to intervene in the Sudan, we wouldn't make shrieking "UN troops out now!" our main priority if they did.

What's wrong with that?

as i understand the situation so far in darfur thousands of people have already died. it now seems that a whole lot more are going to die. i read very little on this subject in the newspapers,i hear very little from politicians,and from the left, whatever that is nowadays, very little too. what does one do?
"A UN force — if it happens — may help stem the bloodshed. If it succeeded only partially that would be a good thing. Even so we can have no confidence in UN interventions (remember Srebrenica!)

On the other hand to either let the conflict rip and/or to let the reactionary Sudanese government “sort out” the situation in Darfur would be a certain disaster."
I know i will support the day for darfur on sunday,probably that will not change very much. at least if the silence starts to get broken a little, the claim of not knowing will not be possible. what are the possibilities? what can we do?

"But to repeat — as difficult as it is to predict — to a limited extent and for its own reasons a UN intervention might have good consequences. To say that is not to endorse the intervention but just to state the obvious, rational, sane thing." Is it so obvious? How many people will turn up at the Darfur day of action on sunday? How many people will demonstrate their opposition to this humanitarian disaster?
I have just read the latest Amnesty International press release on darfur which suggests the current situation is terrible.

The meeting last night was useful, though it had to be cut short because of a misunderstanding about the booking times. My fault and apologies to those there last night for having to cut short the debate from the floor at an important point.

I think what came clearly out of the meeting is that it is not adequate, and indeed shameful, in the midst of a genocide to merely set out a critique of the UN, and make abstract calls that have little basis in reality for international workers solidarity. It is right, however to be clearer about the UN's history of intervention in Africa and elsewhere, and the viability and reality of what the UN, as it is, can and will do in Sudan. It was generally expressed that a general narrative about imperialist intervention in this case was crude and unhelpful.

Some of the main concrete calls on the UN internationally are for a no fly zone over Sudan, the cutting of feul exports that are bankrolling the genocide, and an arms embargo - particularly aimed at stopping China which continues to undermine the Sudan divestment efforts. Also that Chad allows NGOs and the UN to be based on its territory to keep aid flowing in the event of a no-fly zone.

There is talk of 48,000 troops being agreed by the UN to bolster the 7,000 strong AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). It would take more than double that, it seems, to secure Darfur with a land mass the size of France. And this in itself, doesn't ultimately eradicate the genocidal drive of the government, but might undercut the ability of the Sudanese government to perpetually postpone elections on the basis of a national emergency in Darfur, and compel them to implement the terms agreed under the comprehensive peace agreement, which as you can see are themselves troubling

http://www.iss.co.za/af/profiles/Sudan/darfur/cpaprov.htm

One contribution suggested arming the people in the refugee camps for self defence, who are being starved, and harassassed, raped and killed when they leave the camps in search of firewood and food. As socialists, the comrade argued, we should minimally support their right to self defence against massacre.

This was largely rejected by the speakers. There is one line on Darfur, which works on a humanitarian basis, that would reject the idea of arming the camps; at the moment the case can be made unequivocally that the people in camps are not in conflict, and are innocent civililans that are being brutalised and ethnically cleansed by the government - people distinct from the three rebel groups. Involving these people in armed struggle compromises the already limited humanitarian efforts.

Someone also pointed out that if you were going to arm anyone, you wouldn't arm the poeple in the camps, largely women, elderly and children but that you'd arm the newly united SLM and JEM for the same purpose ?

In the discussion following the meeting it does seem as though there is some basis in this last idea. The SPLA in the south got to a stage where the government had to negotiate, through gaining territorial control and popular support. I am not clear on any of this; if anyone can add some clarity here, that would be useful.

Clearly we, as a left, have a duty to go beyond humanitarian support.

Immediately we can straightforwardly make solidarity with Sudanese asylum seekers here in the UK who are still being deported to Khartoum!

One dimension to left inactivity on Sudan that I heard out last night is that the Sudanese government apprarently has strong links with the "resistance" in Iraq, which might go some way to explaining the silence on Sudan among the official stop the war movement. Much more has already been said about Somalia because it can be bent to their general Imperialism narrative, neglecting to deal with the politcal mess that Somalia is.

Please can someone explain what is different about calling upon our governments do things domestically - capitalist and imperialist as they are - and calling upon the UN to act on the demands above. We are able to make demands of government in our interests, while maintaining clarity about what the governement is, and what alternative we are building. We can make solidarity with what progressive forces there are in Sudan surely, while acknowledging that the demolition of the trade union movement in Sudan means that we have little other choice than making a call, with qualifications, for the UN to act?

I don't see how doing nothing builds the forces of the international independent working class.

Can we agree that comrades will schedule and build for fringe meetings on Sudan throughout the upcoming union conference season and try and get guest speaker slots during conference time.

We should discuss with the contacts we have made though calling last night's meeting (including members of the Sudan CP here) and among ourselves, a coherent plan of solidarity action.