[statecom] Adding Tutu to: Another Sudan response from a Muslim woman

[Merelice]

Greetings,

As you will learn from the minutes, the StateCom meeting did not
address the proposal -- signed by 13 co-sponsors -- regarding removing
the current 2004 Sudan statement from the GRP website until we come to
a more broadly accepted agreement within the party.

My own view (and that of several of the co-sponsors) is that we are
spending a dis-proportionate amount of our time and energy on this
subject. So we would far prefer to spend that time and energy on
actions and issues that resonate with our constituencies closer to
home. But so long as that statement remains the GRP's only official
public position, it will continue to bite at our heels and create
divisions within our ranks.

I suggest that we are not really far apart in our views. But some of
us want to approach the subject with a view toward building greater
agreement among us, and it appears that some of us want to speak and
act as provocateurs (definition: a person who incites dissension). If
I thought that our proposal "dismisses humanitarian concerns regarding
civilians AND tacitly proposes US military 'regime change' (presumably
paid for by our tax dollars) of the government of Sudan," I too would
be as alarmed as Karin is. But any reading of our statement puts the
lie to that interpretation.

Many of us (and I count myself among them) have spent the last few
years carefully learning about the complexities of the Sudan and
Darfur situations. I agree with Ron; the situation cannot be
simplistically presented.  BUT well informed and well intentioned
people can still want to emphasize different things, consider
different solutions, use language that addresses the reader
differently, and maybe even disagree on certain details. I have not
been accusatory toward people who have a different perspective from
mine; I find it very tiresome when others are either blaming or
patronizing toward those of us who feel our current statement is
inadequate and in some ways misleading.

While I can be persuaded that sanctions would NOT be helpful, I here
quote from a June 21 op-ed entitled "Working together to save Darfur"
that was co-authored by Bishop Tutu of South Africa (I will send the
full op-ed to the discuss list):

"....Spintered and spintering rebel groups are no saints either when
it comes to human rights, but the overwhelming responsibility for the
war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur rests with the
government....Sudan should be treated like apartheid South Africa and
be isolated politically and economically....It is time to stop
accepting Sudan's promises and excuses and hold that government
accountable for its actions and its inaction....

"Khartoum's window of opportunity to respond must be weeks, not
months. Any further stonewalling must result in targeted sanctions,
politically and economically isolating those in power...."

Based on Tutu's statements, would he be similarly accused of
"anti-African war-mongering"??

I state unequivocably that war-mongering is not what the GRP is about.
And it is not what the 13 proposal co-sponsors are about. So long as
we get lumped into that category (along with Tutu, I presume?), it
will be difficult to reconcile our different approaches.

Merelice

PS: I am supportive of sanctions on and divestment from Israel. Please
don't change the subject.


On 7/28/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another comment on Sudan from a Muslim woman
> To all from Karin:
>
> While I agree that the online statement on Sudan needs to be updated
> since it's from 2004, I am extremely alarmed by Merelice's proposal
> which dismisses the humanitarian concerns regarding civilians AND
> tacitly proposes US military "regime change" (presumably paid for by
> our tax dollars) of the government of Sudan.
>
> I completely disagree that imposing economic sanctions on Sudan would
> be in accordance with GRP values.
>
> Sudan is already a poor country, with no roads and no infrastructure
> in most of the country. What is needed to eradicate crime and poverty
> in Sudan is investments to build roads, water pipes, electricity,
> schools, and a civilian police force. There is zero chance that
> eliminating Sudan's income would reduce crime in Sudan.
>
> An example of a positive implication for divestment would be Israel;
> where America is paying out of our pockets to supply Israel's tanks,
> ammunition, as well as subsidizing housing costs for Jewish mortgages
> at low interest rates unavailable to non-Jewish Americans. In Sudan,
> the ongoing violence is not caused by unlimited "charitable" funding
> by America, but by dire poverty, especially lack of water.
>
> Right now the neocons have an "oil-for-food" sanctions regime in
> proposal which would create Iraq-like starvation conditions to enable
> the US to steal Sudanese oil in exchange for dried lentils. (Iraqis
> received 2 tablespoons of lentils a day through oil-for-food: not
> quite enough to sustain life but just enough to make dying take
> longer). Making Sudan a "rogue state" facilitates the theft of
> resources and "population control."
>
> This reminds me very much of the pro-war statements about the Taliban,
> where feminists were urged to tell Clinton to "do something" about
> Afghanistani male chauvinist pigs. As we now know, "do something"
> meant mass murdering thousands of men and letting their children die
> of starvation as orphans living in the street. Today, there are tens
> of thousands of small children eating from the garbage in just the
> city of Kabul, thanks to "progressives," who had asked the US
> government to intervene to stop Afghani male chauvinism. To further
> punish those damn male pig chauvinists, the JCRC helped the neocons
> pressure Bush to have all the directors of charities feeding Afghan
> orphans arrested and put in prison for life based on secret evidence.
> Then, the charities were closed and all the orphans' nutritional
> support was cut off entirely. [Kids left to die.]
>
> So, in light of the past use of "news," I please urge you to
> reconsider the imperialist cry to impose sanctions on the suffering
> country of Sudan, and to realize that the majority of news reports out
> there, from ABC to NPR originate with Charles Jacobs, who works for
> the JCRC to promote Israel's image among Americans.
>
> Our goal should be to help the people of Sudan live to see the next
> decade as comfortably as possible.
>
> As an organization which has declared it an obligation to boycott
> Israel, the GRP should cut off the JCRC, and stop this anti-African
> warmongering. If you care about Africans, stop the US bombing of
> Somalia.
>
> Karin Friedemann
>
>
> From: Merelice
> Date: July 28, 2007 12:06:28 PM EDT
> To: statecom
> Subject: [statecom] proposal carryovers-2
> Reply-To: State Committee Official Business
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Given the GRP's current (restrictive) practices whereby past proposals
> are not carried over from one meeting to the next but must be
> re-posted, I understand that my proposals might not be addressed
> tomorrow. But I'd like you to think further about them and would
> appreciate their being part of the ranking process. I will send each
> proposal separately, and will post them on the website.
>
>
> This one is a proposal that grows out of a Sudan statement that was
> brought to the last StateCom meeting. The proposal currently has 13
> co-sponsors; we welcome others. It would be extremely helpful to have
> it considered (by statecom and/or adcom) before the state convention.
>
>
> Proposal: Remove the 2004 Sudan statement from the GRP website until
> it has been updated, revised, or supplemented by a statement that
> reflects greater agreement within the party.
>
>
> Sponsors:  John Andrews, Steve Baer, Larry Ely, Dave England, Eva
> Kerr, Mel King, Merelice, Luc Schuster, Jill Stein, Jeff Turner, Nancy
> Lee Wood, Elie Yarden, Betts Zisk
>
>
> Background:  GRP Non-Consensus on Sudan/Dafur
>
>
> The signatories of this statement are asking the GRP Administrative
> Committee to acknowledge the lack of Party consensus regarding the
> Party's current Sudan statement (approved in 2004) and recent
> statements made on behalf of the GRP based in part on that policy.
> Given this lack of consensus, we request that the statement be
> withdrawn from the GRP website pending review, further discussion, and
> broad agreement.
>
>
> While we acknowledge the truth of much that is in the current
> statement, we are uncomfortable with a tone that appears indifferent
> to the humanitarian crisis. And while the statement is rightfully
> critical of the US actions in Sudan, we reject its unquestioning
> endorsement of the Sudanese government. As one GRP state committee
> member put it, "One could easily read the GRP statement and wrongly
> think that we are denying that atrocities are taking place or that the
> Government of Sudan and its armies and militias have no part in that….
> Why do we have a statement that would appear to express support for a
> government instead of compassion for the people of the region?" There
> is also significant disagreement within the Party at this time about
> whether economic sanctions are or are not a reasonable tool for
> bringing pressure to bear to stop the killing in Darfur.
>
>
> We do not doubt the good intentions of the advocates for the current
> position. But we feel there are significant problems with the current
> position statement, and important controversies that need to be
> resolved before the Party can back a statement on Sudan/Darfur. In
> addition, we hope that a final statement on Sudan will be more
> affirmative of Green-Rainbow key values.
>
>
> To illustrate a different approach to the current crisis in Darfur, we
> follow this statement with an alternative resolution that some State
> Com members brought to the last meeting (and which has been further
> revised).  This statement focuses on the current humanitarian crisis,
> and invokes our engaged, collective humanity as a critical tool in
> conflict resolution. It purposefully leaves the issues of exploitation
> and imperialism in US policy towards Africa to a separate dedicated
> policy statement, to be based on a revision of the current 2004 GRP
> statement on Sudan. We ask that it be considered and promptly attended
> to by AdCom. Any statement that AdCom then decides to post shall be
> brought back to StateCom or the State Convention for final
> ratification.
>
>
> We look forward to further dialogue, resolution of current internal
> disagreements, and development of a consensus statement on Sudan and
> the crisis in Darfur.....