don't save darfur

exclusive feature
Brian Hughes Kasoro
The Liberator Magazine


No, don't "save" Darfur, [Clarifying Darfur] just stop the Khartoum government from killing innocent people in Darfur indirectly by hiring a militia (Janjaweed) to do this dirty work. And while you're at it, for immediate actions, stop the Janjaweed themselves by providing a defense force for Darfur that will be capable of disarming this Janjaweed army.

Seems easy, but for some reason the U.N. can't get enough people to agree on this. For some reason, some are scared of upsetting trade relations they have with the Sudan government in that country's capital, Khartoum. Who are these "some people"?

The Washington Post so naively questions this morning how it is at all possible that China, Indian, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Pakistan are continuing to prop up the economy of Sudan and it's current government knowing that by doing so they support the genocide the government is carrying out against the people of Darfur.

Washington Post, I KNOW that you can do better than that. You are justified for chiding those countries for their support of a genocidal regime. But you cannot continue to fail at presenting a more complete picture. After all, the United States of America has a habit itself of supporting regimes of terror as long as its economic interests are involved.

And Britain didn't seem to care much about helping the Jewish people create a state of Israel until its interests (small scale warfare between Zionists and Britain) were intertwined with that action.

Unfortunately nations very rarely do anything out of goodwill and more often they do it out of self interest. We need only to revisit World War II through "A People's History of the United States" (Howard Zinn)

When Mussolini's Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the U.S. declared an embargo on munitions but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war. When a Fascist rebellion took place in Spain in 1936 against the elected socialist-liberal government, the Roosevelt administration sponsored a neutrality act that had the effect of shutting off help to the Spanish government while Hitler and Mussolini gave critical aid to Franco. Offner says:
... the United States went beyond even the legal requirements of its neutrality legislation. Had aid been forthcoming from the United States and from England and France, considering that Hitler's position on aid to France was not firm at least until November 1936, the Spanish Republicans could well have triumphed. Instead, Germany gained every advantage from the Spanish civil war.
Was this simply poor judgment, an unfortunate error? Or was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable. Roosevelt was as much concerned to end the oppression of Jews as Lincoln was to end slavery during the Civil War; their priority in policy (whatever their personal compassion for victims of persecution) was not minority rights, but national power.

It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million blacks brought Civil War in 1861. Italy's attack on Ethiopia, Hitler's invasion of Austria, his takeover of Czechoslovakia, his attack on Poland-none of those events caused the United States to enter the war, although Roosevelt did begin to give important aid to England. What brought the United States fully into the war was the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. Surely it was not the humane concern for Japan's bombing of civilians that led to Roosevelt's outraged call for war-Japan's attack on China in 1937, her bombing of civilians at Nan king, had not provoked the United States to war. It was the Japanese attack on a link in the American Pacific Empire that did it.

So long as Japan remained a well-behaved member of that imperial club of Great Powers who-in keeping with the Open Door Policy- were sharing the exploitation of China, the United States did not object. It had exchanged notes with Japan in 1917 saving "the Government of the United States recognizes that Japan has special interests in China." In 1928, according to Akira Iriye (After Imperialism,), American consuls in China supported the coming of Japanese troops. It was when Japan threatened potential U.S. markets by its attempted takeover of China, but especially as it moved toward the tin, rubber, and oil of Southeast Asia, that the United States became alarmed and took those measures which led to the Japanese attack: a total embargo on scrap iron, a total embargo on oil in the summer of 1941.

So after all of that at the end of the day, we have to ask: can the U.N. do its job while these giant nation-states have these security council vetoes at their disposal?

In order for anything to work the U.S., France, U.K., Russia and China all have to agree to do it. Otherwise one of them can veto the other's actions since they are the only permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (as decided by the "founding father" nations of the U.N.)

And since so often throughout history at at least one of these nations has been at odds with at least one other of the group, especially concerning expanding their markets into the rest of the world, (so-called "third world") it's not too often that they will agree on these types of interventions on any "moral" basis.

Instead, economic incentives will always be one of, if not the major factors that decides if the U.N. will do its job around the world by protecting people's human rights to not be killed indiscriminately by armed militias. (we can all agree on that human right, right?)

Submissions: scripts at

//info at
//cashapp $lvfrmplnt3

... Cultivare, cultiva terra, arable land, colere, colō; worship, protect, cultivate. As a regular gift to our $2400+/biennium members, Live From Planet Earth extends a special unlimited invitation to our family's homestead/farm/estate in Jamaica. Sign-up by clicking your membership contribution amount below. Live From Planet Earth is a hands-on, cooperative meditation — on self-sustaining, tropical, organic human being and development — rooting and producing through your generous, reparative, faithful contributions. Please support by helping us fill this measure little by little, slowly but surely: Annual ($36), ($2400), ($6000); Monthly ($3), ($5), ($10), ($25), ($30), ($40), ($60), ($70), ($80), ($90), ($130), ($200), ($500), ($1000).