Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Darfur, Israel, & Congressman Tom Lantos

Expand Messages
  • World View
    When you analyze the situation in Darfur, you should be aware of Israel s strategy, and Congressman Tom Lantos past record. Darfur, Israel, and Congressman
    Message 1 of 1 , May 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      When you analyze the situation in Darfur, you should be aware of
      Israel's strategy, and Congressman Tom Lantos' past record.


      Darfur, Israel, and Congressman Tom Lantos
      May 2, 2006
      THE WISDOM FUND News & Views
      http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0603-Scramble.html


      According to a book published by the Dayan Institute for Middle East
      and Africa Studies called "Israel and the Sudanese Liberation
      Movement," Israel adopted a strategy which they called 'pulling the
      limbs then cutting them off.' What this policy entailed was the
      building of bridges with minority groups, pulling them out of the
      nationalist context and then 'encouraging' them to separate.

      Tel Aviv hoped that this strategy would inevitably weaken the Arab
      world, break it down and threaten its interests at the same time. In
      order for this strategy to work, Mossad agents opened lines of
      communication and connections with the Kurds in Iraq, Maronites in
      Lebanon and Southerners in Sudan.--"Israel's hand in Sudan's past and
      future," Yemen Observer, January 15, 2005

      http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0807-Darfur.html


      ---
      A high point of the public relations campaign against Iraq, was the
      testimony of a Kuwaiti refugee, before the Congressional Human Rights
      Caucus on October 15, 1990, who told of Iraqi troops removing over 300
      babies from incubators in Kuwait City hospital, and dumping them on
      the floor to die.

      On January 6, 1992, John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine
      and author of "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf
      War," revealed in a New York Times Op-Ed that "Nayirah," the alleged
      refugee, was the daughter of Saud al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the
      United States, and that Hill and Knowlton, a large public relations
      firm, had helped prepare her testimony, which she had rehearsed before
      video cameras in the firm's Washington office.

      "The chairmen of the Congressional group, "Tom Lantos, a California
      Democrat, and John Edward Porter, an Illinois Republican, explained
      that Nayirah's identity would be kept secret to protect her family
      from reprisals in occupied Kuwait" wrote MacArthur.

      http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0417-Deception.html


      ---
      In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
      distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
      interest in receiving the included information for research and
      educational purposes.

      "THE WAR ON ISLAM" -- Recipient Human Rights Foundation Gold Award
      Get your FREE copy from http://www.twf.org/Library/woi3aL.pdf

      ===

      What imperialists don't say
      Oil is behind struggle in Darfur
      By G. Dunkel
      Apr 27, 2006
      http://www.workers.org/2006/world/darfur-0504/


      The mass media in the U.S., France and Britain are writing a great
      deal about the suffering in the Darfur region of western Sudan and the
      tensions between the Sudanese government and neighboring Chad. Not
      surprisingly, they write very little about the economic interests
      these three imperialist countries have in the oil recently discovered
      in this part of Africa.

      Chad, which was once a French colony and still is occupied by French
      troops, is accusing Sudan of supporting and encouraging an April 14
      raid on its capital, Ndjamena. It is threatening to expel 200,000
      Sudanese living in Chad who get their support from the office of the
      United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

      Sudan—which at one time was a British colony, but has since been using
      its oil to develop an independent economy—charges that Chad has been
      supporting rebellion in Darfur. Sudan wants the UNHCR to financially
      support the 15,000 Chadians who have fled to Sudan recently to escape
      heavy fighting in eastern Chad.

      The fierce fighting in eastern Chad at the end of March resulted in
      the combat death of Chadian Army commander Brig. Gen. Abakar Youssouf
      Mahamat Itno, underlining the army's decline.

      China plays a different role

      Darfur is known to have major yet untapped oil reserves, representing
      a vast amount of potential wealth at a time when crude oil has risen
      to nearly $75 a barrel.
      While France and the U.S. are the only two imperialist countries with
      significant military forces in Africa, Britain still plays a major
      diplomatic and political role there, generally in coordination with
      Washington.

      China plays a different role. The Western imperialists see China as
      their growing competitor for Sudan's oil.

      China has actually helped Sudan's economic development while serving
      its own needs for oil.

      According to a Dec. 23, 2004, report in the Washington Post, China
      National Petro leum Corp. (CNPC), owned by the Chinese government,
      invested $300 million in an expansion of Sudan's largest refinery,
      doubling its output. The refinery now supplies most of Sudan's
      petroleum needs.

      The CNPC also began trial production of oil at a field in southern
      Darfur in 2004 and has a 41-percent share of the oil from a field in
      the Melut Basin. Another Chinese firm, Sinopec Corp., built a
      1,000-mile pipeline from that complex to Port Sudan on the Red Sea,
      where China's Petroleum Engineering Construction Group has built a
      tanker terminal.

      All in all, China buys about two-thirds of Sudan's oil.

      U.S. policy: divide and rule

      After Sudan achieved its formal independence from Britain in 1956, the
      country went through a period of internal struggles. Beginning in the
      1970s Sudan began moving in a radical Islamic direction, rejecting the
      neocolonial relations that the United States and other European powers
      wanted to impose.

      A well-organized and well-financed rebellion in southern Sudan began
      soon after. The United States supported the south financially,
      politically and militarily in order to divide and conquer. By
      tightening an economic embargo on the Sudanese government, the U.S.
      could also exert economic pressure.

      Washington even went so far as military attacks, like the cruise
      missile strike in 1998 that blew up the only pharmaceutical plant in
      Sudan. No proof was ever offered to back up the imperialist pretext
      that the plant manufactured chemical weapons, or that Sudan was
      somehow connected to terrorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

      A delegation led by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark of the
      International Action Center visited the ruins of the plant and
      confirmed that it had simply been making medicines.

      In 2005, the central government and the Sudanese People's Liberation
      Movement—the group which led the struggle in the south—ratified an
      agreement. The settlement granted the south substantial auto nomy, a
      50-50 split of oil revenues and a referendum on full independence
      within six years. China was instrumental in the negotiations for this
      peace agreement.

      Once the Sudanese settled this conflict, the imperialists needed
      another one to keep up the threats and pressure on Sudan.

      Washington foments division

      Drought and the subsequent encroachment of the desert have led to
      fighting over grazing and water rights in Darfur, which escalated in
      2003 into a major conflict. The fighting has grown so intense that
      tens of thousands of people are reported to have died and 200,000 to
      have fled across the border into Chad.

      Two competing armed movements—the Sudanese Liberation Army and the
      Movement for Justice and Equality—won some early victories against the
      Sudanese Army. These two armed movements maintained their logistic and
      training bases in the eastern part of Chad, near the border with Darfur.

      Once the rebellion in Darfur began, the Sudanese government set up
      counter-militias, called Jinjaweed, recruited from nomadic ethnic
      groups in Darfur who main ly speak Arabic. The Sudanese Liberation
      Army and the Movement for Justice and Equality recruited from ethnic
      groups in Darfur who don't use Arabic.

      The U.S. government, among others, is trying to exacerbate these
      differences by defining this conflict as between "Arab vs. black."
      Washington has accused Sudan of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing."
      However, Paul Moorcraft, a British expert on Sudan, points out,
      "Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous African Muslims—just like
      Darfur's non-Arabs."

      The African Union has 7,000 troops in Darfur trying to keep the peace.
      But the imperialist powers want more direct control by replacing the
      African Union forces with either NATO or UN troops in order to further
      imperialist interests in the region and to deny the Sudanese control
      over their own territory.

      Propaganda for NATO intervention

      The New York Times, whose right-wing columnist Nicholas D. Kristof
      just won a Pulitzer prize for demanding U.S. intervention in Darfur,
      supplies the liberal cover for imperialist troop deployment.

      Two Zionist groups, the American Jewish World Service and the Jewish
      Council for Public Affairs, have taken a very active role in building
      a national rally set for April 30 whose main demand is direct U.S.
      intervention in Darfur to "stop the genocide." The AJWS is pushing to
      replace the African Union soldiers in Darfur with 20,000 UN or NATO
      troops.

      But that would require the approval of the UN Security Council. China
      is very likely to veto any such resolution. So the U.S. and Britain
      are stepping up their propaganda against Sudan and against China's
      significant support and investment there.
      France, the main competing imperialist power in Africa, is concerned
      about Sudan. But its real worry is Chad and its oil, which is
      currently being extracted by a consortium led by ExxonMobil. France is
      concerned that a key part of its sphere of influence in Africa is
      shrinking.

      The World Bank has forced a deal on Chad that restricts how that
      country can spend its oil revenue and that limits its oil income per
      barrel to $10 to $15 less than world market prices. (Jeune Afrique,
      April 16-22)

      Opposition to the World Bank oil deal is growing in Chad. And many
      Chadians also resent the fact that French soldiers are still guarding
      government buildings 45 years after independence.

      The U.S. want to get President Déby out and a new president in who
      relies on it, not France. The very day of the attack on Ndjamena, U.S.
      Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick called on Chad to adopt a
      "different political process" and to reach a "satisfactory
      arrangement" with the political opposition. Undersecretary of State
      for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto began a two-day visit there on
      April 24.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.