[statecom] [REMAINING CONCERNS] Temporary Intro to Sudan Statement Proposal - Version #2

[David Rolde]

There wasn't a ballot. This was a call for concerns.  Merelice and I  
have both expressed concerns.  If there is way to address concerns at  
this point, then maybe you should set a deadline for people to state  
their concerns and then start a balloting process for asking people  
to vote yes or no on the proposal.

On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:22 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:

> David - your concerns are noted - I am sure that it is right to  
> interprete
> this as having concerns - but it would probably be more appropriate  
> if I don't
> interprete   - if you don't mind filling out the actual formal  
> ballot, which
> also would properly identify you as a statecom rep?
>
> As you know, the discussion period ended last night, but we can  
> certainly
> note your concerns no matter what the decision is.   I personally  
> wish you had
> voiced these during the discussion and amendment period when we  
> could have
> negotiated other language - thanks, Grace
> In a message dated 8/17/07 7:01:54 PM, davidrolde at comcast.net writes:
>
>
>> I have serious concerns with the proposal.
>
>>
>> The proposed preamble is unnecessary and confusing.  And the proposal
>> is reactionary and not helpful or conducive towards further activism
>> on this issue.
>>
>> The preamble is unnecessary because it has very little additional
>> content and does not present a change in our view or even a
>> clarification.  Our existing statement at http://www.green-
>> rainbow.org/Statements/sudan.html already describes the situation in
>> Darfur as a "humanitarian crisis of civil war and famine".  Our
>> existing statement already calls for humanitarian assistance:
>> "unconditional  food aid and medical aid are needed and should be
>> sent to the Darfur region."
>>
>> While our existing statement doesn't explicitly call on all parties
>> in Darfur to respect human rights and refrain from attacking non-
>> combatants, our statement certainly doesn't condone any behavior like
>> that.  No GRP people involved in anti-war activism regarding Sudan
>> have ever suggested that it is ok to attack non-combatants. We are
>> for peace. Our statement describes the situation in Darfur as a
>> complex conflict involving several warring armed factions. We
>> specifically don't get into accusing one faction or another of
>> committing war crimes or violations of human rights.  We concentrate
>> on criticizing the policies and actions of our US government that
>> have caused or contributed towards worsening the conflict and
>> humanitarian crisis in Darfur. I believe that non-violence as one of
>> our key values is implied in our statement, that we have not condoned
>> violence in Darfur, and that we have no need to be defensive against
>> ridiculous accusations against us.  The problem with US policy
>> regarding Darfur is that the US government demonizes certain factions
>> in Darfur and makes false or exaggerated accusations against these
>> factions and uses these accusations as a pretext to threaten
>> increased US-sponsored military action in Darfur and the rest of
>> Sudan and to interfere with the peace negotiations among the
>> conflicting indigenous groups in Darfur -  it is difficult for a
>> faction in Darfur to make peace with another faction who the US
>> government labels as war criminals or genocidaires.  To the extent
>> that asking everyone in Darfur to respect human rights could be seen
>> as us implying that some faction in Darfur is not respecting human
>> rights, a statement like this could be inappropriate for us as a US-
>> based party to be making.
>>
>> The proposed preamble is confusing.  People would wonder why is GRP
>> adding this preamble now in August 2007.  The fighting and
>> humanitarian crisis in Darfur was much more severe in 2004 and early
>> 2005 when our statement was being drafted and adopted than it is
>> now.  We noted the humanitarian crisis then.  We called for
>> humanitarian aid and debt forgiveness and an end to harmful foreign
>> intervention as steps we thought should be taken to alleviate the
>> crisis. Since then there has been progress in peace negotiations,
>> there is a much lower level of violence in Darfur now. And a billion
>> dollar a year humanitarian aid industry has set up shop in Darfur and
>> is doing as good a job of providing for people there as such a
>> bloated corrupt bureaucratic bunch of NGOs could ever do, i.e., they
>> are at least allowing people to subsist in the camps. People in the
>> US who are playing up the humanitarian crisis in Darfur right now are
>> doing so to provide a pretext for intervention in Sudan (and threats
>> against Sudan) in order to gain unfettered access to the natural
>> resources there (oil and other) and to further destabilize a large
>> Black African predominately Muslim nation and to try to divide people
>> there who otherwise might not allow themselves to become owned by
>> international corporate monopoly capital.  And people in the US who
>> are playing up the humanitarian crisis in Darfur now are doing so to
>> distract from worse humanitarian crises in Iraq, Congo, Somalia,
>> Palestine and other places.  We already are on record concerned about
>> the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. We are concerned about it.  Why
>> reiterate this now in August 2007 out of context without reiterating
>> or strengthening our language about how our government is
>> contributing to or causing this crisis?
>>
>> Again in August 2007 why would we suddenly call on all parties in
>> Darfur to respect human rights and refrain from attacking non-
>> combatants. Who would we be accusing of human rights violations?  It
>> is confusing. Everyone is going to have a different interpretation of
>> this. Is the point to placate those in our party who don't want to
>> contradict the imperialist propaganda which demonizes the Sudanese
>> government and groups in Darfur who are allied more with the
>> government than with anti-government forces? Are these the groups we
>> would be accusing of human rights violations?  Again it is a complex
>> conflict in Darfur. We shouldn't be demonizing one group or another.
>> That leads to intervention and war not to peace. Most accounts that I
>> see this year from the UN and mainstream newswires say that now most
>> of the violence in Darfur is being perpetrated by the splinter groups
>> of the anti-government forces. But I don't think we should climb on
>> this bandwagon and accuse the anti-government groups of war crimes
>> either. We should see everyone in Darfur as reasonable human beings
>> and allow them to negotiate peace.  There is an increasingly larger
>> international AU/UN/US military occupation force in Darfur. Maybe it
>> would make sense for us to call on the international force to respect
>> human rights and not violate the 4th Geneva convention.  We know that
>> these international occupation forces have brutalized the people
>> almost everywhere they have been deployed or at least not helped. See
>> Steve Lendman's article for an analysis of UN "peacekeeping"
>> operations http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?
>> ItemID=12131 .  And the US government exerts much direct control so
>> it would be appropriate for us to comment.  The proposed preamble
>> would be better if the second clause specifically said "We call on
>> all parties INCLUDING THE AU/UN/US FOREIGN MILITARY OCCUPATION OF
>> DARFUR ...".  But it would be even better for us to simply oppose the
>> occupation rather than calling for it to function differently from
>> all other similar occupations.
>>
>> The proposal is reactionary, not progressive.  The purpose of the
>> proposal is to try to satisfy people who think that we shouldn't
>> challenge the imperialist propaganda about Sudan. I don't know if the
>> proposal could actually even satisfy those people. But in any case
>> that is the stated purpose of the proposal.  Our position on Sudan is
>> correct. It is not right to abandon people in Africa for political
>> expediency so that warmongers in Massachusetts won't criticize us.
>> In the context of current Massachusetts politics the most important
>> thing that a progressive proposal to add something to our Sudan
>> statement would do would be to let everyone know that we
>> incontrovertibly and strongly oppose the crazy Sudan divestment bill
>> currently before our state legislature.  The proposed divestment bill
>> is racist incitement for more US-sponsored slaughter of Africans. Our
>> current statement opposes sanctions against Sudan. Our state
>> committee in August 2006 by consensus suggested that our statewide
>> candidates should oppose divestment from Sudan. Earlier this year our
>> administrative committee decided, because it is consistent with our
>> existing position as well as correct, that we oppose the Sudan
>> divestment bills.  Our administrative committee asked me to go
>> testify against the bill and I did so.  Another person who testified
>> against the bill has joined Green-Rainbow Party because of our anti-
>> war position. We need to be able to work on opposing the pro-war
>> campaign against Sudan in Massachusetts instead of arguing amongst
>> ourselves about whether Africans are important enough for us to care
>> about.  The Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater
>> Boston is the group that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
>> on anti-Sudan propaganda in Massachusetts and is the group that has
>> been pushing the Sudan divestment bill.  JCRC is next sponsoring a
>> similar Massachusetts divestment bill against Iran.  State-level
>> divestment bills are part of a new paradigm for how to drum up
>> support in the USA for imperialist wars of aggression.  We need to
>> oppose wars.
>>
>> At the recent state committee meeting, people were talking about
>> opposing "corporate grabs".  The same corporations that are grabbing
>> in Massachusetts are grabbing in Darfur and elsewhere in Africa and
>> around the world.  The issues in Darfur are the same as in
>> Massachusetts.   Demonizing people in Sudan as monsters killing each
>> other who need us to to intervene to stop them is the same thing as
>> demonizing people of color in Massachusetts as monsters killing each
>> other and sending in more police to beat in their heads to stop them
>> and building more prisons.   Just like prisons are not the right
>> affordable housing program for the communities in Massachusetts
>> visited by our March to Abolish Poverty,  refugee camps are not the
>> right housing program for Darfur. We need to force the US government
>> to stop destablizing Sudan, to stop crying "genocide" and
>> "terrorist", and to stop sabotaging the peace negotiations in Darfur
>> so that things can get back to normal there and people can return to
>> their homes.  People of color in the USA and people in Darfur and all
>> of Africa deserve reparations and deserve to be allowed to control
>> their own lives and economies.
>>
>> Of course I am very concerned about the humanitarian crisis in
>> Darfur. I want to do anything I can to help. And of course I don't
>> want people in Sudan to kill each other.  But I don't want to blame
>> the victims and starve them with sanctions and send in the troops to
>> further victimize them and make things worse; and that is the
>> direction that I fear this proposal is pointing towards.
>>
>> - David Rolde
>> Middlesex County
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> CALL FOR CONSENSUS (response template at end of email)
>>> This is a statecom proposal that is being put through our email
>>> decision-making process.   We are now entering the second stage
>>> which is the one week
>>> period to call for consensus. For more information on the process,
>>> please go to:
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/StateCom/email_proposals.html/view
>>>
>>> Thanks to those who gave feedback - all amendments were found to be
>>> friendly
>>> and are incorporated in the new version below.  One editorial
>>> addition of the
>>> word 'the' in part one.   Part two was completely rewritten.
>>>
>>> DATE/TIMES for this email decision-making process:
>>> Start Discussion: 08/02/2007 11:00pm
>>> End Discussion/Start Call For Consensus: 08/16/2007 11:00pm
>>> End Call For Consensus: 08/23/2007 11:00pm
>>>
>>> SPONSORS:
>>> Grace Ross, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
>>> Ron Francis, ronwf777 at yahoo.com
>>> Dan Melnechuk, isis at isisdesign.com
>>> Gary Hicks, gooberthink06 at yahoo.com
>>> Mike Heichman, mikeheichman at verizon.net
>>>
>>> VERSION: 2
>>> TITLE: Temporary Intro to Sudan Statement Proposal
>>> SUMMARY:
>>> Given the deep dissatisfaction of some party leaders with the frame
>>> of the
>>> present Sudan statement and that it is clearly old; and given that
>>> there are
>>> real differences of opinion which will take time to work out to
>>> craft a new
>>> detailed statement; and given that many members who have not been
>>> opinionated
>>> want
>>> more facts before they make a major decision on wording our new  
>>> Sudan
>>> statement, we would like to propose a new simple introduction to
>>> the existing
>>> statement.   We believe it addresses the most critical elements
>>> some people
>>> feel are
>>> missing from the existing statement.  We would also like to date
>>> the old
>>> statement so it is clear how old it is and state that we will be
>>> posting an
>>> updated
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> We recognize that this will probably not make ANYONE happy - that
>>> is not our
>>> goal.  Our goal is to lower the sense of urgency so that the proper
>>> process
>>> can take the time it needs and not overshadow all other work of the
>>> party.
>>> So,
>>> more than ever, the litmus test should be can you live with this so
>>> that
>>> others can live with it.PROPOSAL:
>>> 1) Introduction to be added above existing posted GRP statement on
>>> Sudan:
>>> "the GRP is deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan
>>> and
>>> supports humanitarian aid for all victims in Sudan. We call on all
>>> parties to
>>> respect human rights for all people in the region as well as the
>>> 4th Geneva
>>> convention
>>> regarding attacks on noncombatants."
>>>
>>> 2) Add a date of passage to this and all position statements
>>> presently posted
>>> and in the future including the new introductory passage to be  
>>> added.
>>>
>>> DELEGATE NAME:
>>> DELEGATE EMAIL ADDRESS OR PHONE IF NO EMAIL:
>>> DELEGATE REMAINING CONCERNS ('Y' for yes and 'N' for no):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************************************
>>>   Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
>>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> StateCom mailing list
>>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> StateCom mailing list
>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
>  Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom