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

MA Greens Oppose Anti-Sudan Bill

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Statement opposing anti-Sudan bill before the state senate March 30, 2007 From: David Rolde Hi everyone. I went to the hearing at
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 3, 2007
      Statement opposing anti-Sudan bill before the state senate
      March 30, 2007
      From: David Rolde <davidrolde @ comcast.net>

      Hi everyone. I went to the hearing at the state house yesterday. It
      didn't feel like a real hearing to discuss an issue. It was more like
      a media propaganda event against Sudan. JCRC mobilized a couple
      hundred people to come. They had Mia Farrow speak and show slides.
      Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray was the first speaker. They had a lot
      of politicians and JCRC people and professional pro-war agitators
      speak for a few minutes each for almost three hours. The rhetoric
      against Sudan and China was inflammatory and extreme. (Someone even
      accused China of "providing the machetes in Rwanda") The committee
      members (the Joint Committee on Public Service) praised the speakers,
      and the committee members who said anything during the hearing were
      clearly part of the movement to demonize Sudan - I mean they presented
      themselves as having proudly participated in the process to get to
      this point where the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is considering
      taking action against Sudan. Someone said there was a letter signed by
      Kerry and Kennedy and all 10 Massachusetts US Congressmen in favor of
      the divestment bills.

      I got there before the hearing started. Someone at a table outside
      told me that I couldn't sign up to speak because all the speakers had
      been determined in advance. But I went in to the hearing room and
      asked one of the committee members who told me that I could sign up to

      After three hours, once a lot of people had left, they let me speak.
      Joachim Martillo also spoke in opposition to the bill right after me.
      Aside from us the only person who said anything in opposition to the
      bill all day was recently resigned state senate president Robert
      Travaglini, who manages one of the funds that would be required to
      divest by the bill. Travaglini said that he opposes divestment on
      principal that investment should generally be in whatever will make
      the highest returns, but he waffled and didn't really seem very opposed.

      I'm not sure if cooperating with this hearing was the right thing to
      do. Maybe I should have disrupted the hearing while Mia Farrow was
      speaking while the TV cameras were still there. The state house cops
      recognized me and warned me not to. But anyway I did wait and speak
      and was polite. I gave the committee about 25 copies of a packet
      including my written testimony, a page of links for info on Sudan, the
      2004 GRP Statement on US Imperialism & Sudan, and my article that is
      in the online version of the Fall 2006 GRP newsletter. The material
      in the packet is in this email below. In my spoken testimony, I read
      parts of my written testimony and a little bit of my article and, as
      Grace suggested, focused more on Sudan and left out most of the
      hypocrisy section - although I did mention the hypocrisy.

      I think this is a very important issue that we need to work on more.
      It is offensive for our state government to be falsely accusing
      Africans of genocide and to be cheerleading for regime change in
      Sudan. We shouldn't accept this quietly.

      - David


      Testimony of David Rolde representing the Green-Rainbow Party of
      Massachusetts in opposition to Senate Bill 1474: 'An Act Relative to
      Pension Divestment' and in opposition to House Bill 2556: 'An Act
      Regulating Divestment in Sudan'

      March 29, 2007

      The Green-Rainbow Party opposes Senate Bill 1474 (Docket Number:
      SD01591 filed by Harriette Chandler), House Bill 2556 (filed by Denis
      Guyer) and all other bills calling for divestment from Sudan that are
      before the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives in
      General Court.

      We oppose the bills not only because divestment would deprive Sudan of
      revenue and thus be harmful to the people of Sudan, but also because
      the bills are based on an unjust and offensively racist demonization
      of the government and people of an African country whose people have
      suffered greatly from years of US economic warfare and overt and
      covert US military warfare against them.

      Unjust and Hypocritical Demonization of Sudan

      US imperialist and Zionist organizations have spent millions of
      dollars on an anti-Sudan propaganda campaign to vilify the Sudanese
      government and Sudanese people and to try to convince Americans that
      the Sudanese government is committing genocide against the people of
      Sudan's Darfur region. In reality there is no genocide. There has
      been a civil war in Darfur with many armed factions - some
      anti-government factions being supported by the US - fighting against
      each other. The numbers of deaths are often exaggerated. The word
      "Janjaweed" in Darfur does not refer to a specific organization but
      refers to any armed group whether they are independant bandits, allied
      with the government, or allied with one of the anti-government rebel
      movements. The motivations for the anti-Sudan propaganda campaign are
      to convince Americans to support war against Sudan in order for the US
      government to gain control over Sudan's oil and other resources or to
      install a new Sudanese government more compliant to US wishes.
      Anti-Sudan propaganda is also part of the general anti-Arab and
      anti-Muslim rhetoric that is used to gain US domestic support for the
      war in Iraq, continued US support of Israel, and for the so-called
      "war on terror".

      The anti-Sudan bills before the Massachusetts legislature demonize the
      government and people of Sudan - the largest country in Africa. The
      bills serve to amplify the drums of war against Sudan and set the
      stage for further U.S. imperial war against Sudan. The Chandler Bill
      cites Colin Powell and George W. Bush and other U.S. government
      officials - the same persons who lied about Iraq's non-existent
      "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "links to Al Qaeda" to promote the
      invasion of Iraq - as accusing the government of Sudan of "genocide"
      and of "supporting international terrorism". Accusations like these
      have recently and historically been used by the U.S. government as
      pretexts to go to war against many countries. All the bills depend
      on continuing US state department designation of "genocide" - a
      designation that can be placed and removed because of Sudanese
      government compliance or non-compliance with US dictates about other
      issues and about access to Sudanese resources. International
      organizations, including the United Nations and the African Union,
      have not used the term "genocide" in regards to Darfur, have not
      accused the Sudanese government of genocide, and have criticized all
      sides in the civil war. International organizations have also
      estimated fewer deaths in Darfur than the Chandler bill cites and have
      not blamed the Sudanese government for all the deaths.

      The demonization of Sudan as expressed in these bills is hypocritical
      on several levels. First: the text of the bills blame the Sudanese
      government for problems that were caused by US intervention.The US has
      starved Sudan with sanctions and a trade boycott, destroyed Sudan's
      largest pharmaceutical plant with a missile strike thus rendering
      Sudan incapable of producing needed medicines for its people and
      livestock, instigated the civil wars in Sudan, armed the rebels, and
      then blamed the Sudanese government for all the deaths (whether by
      violence or famine or disease) and callled it genocide.

      Second: people in the USA do not hold the moral high ground to be able
      to accuse others of human rights violations. The United States
      government itself supports international terrorism and has killed
      millions of people with direct warfare in Iraq, Korea, and Southeast
      Asia and thousands of people in Afghanistan, Panama, Somalia and
      elsewhere. The US government through covert military support of
      insurgencies and open military support of brutal regimes has killed
      thousands - and perhaps millions - of people in Palestine, Congo,
      Sudan, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia, Haiti, etc.

      The US has committed genocide in Iraq, and is supporting a genocidal
      colonial settler regime in Palestine. But the Massachusetts
      legislators are not considering divesting from Israel or divesting
      from US weapons manufacturers. The Sudan divestment campaign is aimed
      primarily at the Chinese oil company to try to stop China from
      obtaining oil from Sudan. China's growing economy represents a threat
      to US global economic hegemony. The US already cut China off from
      Iraqi oil by invading Iraq. The Massachusetts legislators are not
      considering divesting from US oil companies who benefit from US
      imperialist warfare and neoliberal trade agreements forced on other
      countries by the US government at the behest of US oil companies.

      While the crudest anti-Sudan propaganda labels the civil wars in Sudan
      as race wars, in fact almost the entire population of Sudan are black,
      and almost everyone in Darfur is an Arabic speaking Muslim. The
      allegations that the Sudanese government has economically neglected
      Darfur must be seen in the context that Sudan is an impoverished
      country with a per capita GDP of less than $2500 per year, that
      economic development during British colonial rule was regionally
      uneven before Sudan's independence only 50 years ago, that Sudan has
      not had the resources to fully recover yet from colonial
      underdevelopment, and again that Sudan is dealing with civil wars
      instigated by the US.

      Meanwhile in the USA millions of people of color are in prison or live
      in fear of harassment by the police and court system. There is
      widespread poverty and lack of equal access to economic opportunities
      - especially for people of color - in our wealthy country. Indeed
      the USA was founded on genocide and exploitation of Native Americans
      and of African slaves.

      Divestment would be harmful to the people of Sudan

      The U.S. government started limited sanctions against Sudan in the
      early 90s, accusing Sudan of "supporting international terrorism"
      because the Sudanese government expressed support for the Palestinian
      cause and did not support the US "Gulf War" against Iraq.

      In 1997 the Bill Clinton administration, with executive order 13067,
      imposed a complete trade and financial embargo against Sudan so that
      US persons or companies are not allowed to buy from or sell to Sudan.
      This embargo or boycott is still in effect. The embargo has damaged
      the Sudanese economy and caused immense suffering to the Sudanese
      people. Sudan is cut off from some markets for its exports.
      Therefore Sudanese exports must be sold for a lower price than they
      would be in a more competitive market situation, or sometimes no buyer
      can be found. So Sudanese revenue is decreased and poverty
      increased.Things that Sudan needs - for instance human and veterinary
      medications that can't be produced locally since the Clinton
      administration destroyed Sudan's Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998
      - must be bought for a higher price in a market with reduced Sudanese
      access to vendors, or in some cases needed goods cannot be obtained by
      Sudan at all because Sudan cannot afford them or because they are only
      available from the US.

      Divestment from Sudan by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might make
      it more difficult for Sudan to sell oil to China and possibly other
      exports to other buyers and thus would further reduce foreign revenue
      to Sudan. This revenue is needed by the people of Sudan - it provides
      jobs - and by the government of Sudan to build infrastructure and
      provide services to the people of Sudan.

      US Economic sanctions, (of which Massachusetts divestment from Sudan
      would be part), are used by the US government to coerce or try to
      coerce the Sudanese government into following US dictates. The US
      wants Sudan to support US policies in Africa and the Middle East and
      to support Israel. The US government, on behalf of US-based
      corporations, wants unlimited access to and control over Sudan's oil,
      uranium, gum arabic and other agricultural produce, and other
      resources. And the US government wants access to Sudan's territory to
      build military bases and pipelines. US government interests do not
      generally coincide with the interests of the people of Sudan. The
      Sudanese government, in order to acquiesce to US demands in hopes of
      US economic sanctions being removed or in hopes of the US stopping
      covert military operations against Sudan, would have to act against
      the interests of the Sudanese people.

      Finally, sometimes US economic sanctions against a country are a
      prelude to overt warfare or an invasion. Demonization and economic
      sanctions set the stage for war. Iraq is a good example of this.
      Massachusetts divestment from Sudan would make a US, NATO or
      US-sponsored UN invasion of Sudan more likely to happen. US troops,
      including soldiers from Massachusetts, could end up being sent to kill
      and die in Sudan. This would plunge all of Sudan into warfare and be a
      disaster for the people of Sudan.


      Concern for the people of Sudan is laudable. It is important to
      understand the US role in Sudan and to understand the conflict in
      Darfur as a civil war rather than incorrectly as a genocide.
      Demonization of the Sudanese government and divestment from Sudan are
      harmful to the people of Sudan rather than helpful. The Green-Rainbow
      Party urges the Massachusetts legislature to reject Senate Bill 1474
      (An Act Relative to Pension Divestment), House Bill 2556 (An Act
      Regulating Divestment in Sudan) and any other bills calling for
      divestment from Sudan.

      The Green-Rainbow Party has called for removal of all US economic
      sanctions against Sudan and for normalization of relations with Sudan.
      The Green-Rainbow Party is opposed to US or UN or other imposed
      military intervention in Sudan. To help the people of Sudan the
      Massachusetts state legislature should lobby the US federal government
      to remove economic sanctions against Sudan, normalize relations with
      Sudan, stop threatening Sudan, and refrain from arming or supporting
      any armed groups in Sudan.

      References and Information Sources

      "United States Terrorism in the Sudan"
      by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
      a comprehensive and well-footnoted article about US intervention in
      Sudan in the 90s

      Ketih Harmon Snow's articles on Sudan

      'Darfur: an open discussion on intervention, regime change & the
      politics of genocide'
      Hear forum audio at Traprock Peace Center website
      article summarizing the forum at

      The Peace and Justice Foundation
      "What Concerned Citizens Should Know about the Crisis in Darfur
      by El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan
      other articles on Sudan at

      'Darfur, Sudan: Seeking the Truth'
      video interview with Minister Louis Farrakhan

      The European Sudanese Public Affairs Council

      Articles by Sara Flounders of the International Action Center
      "The U.S. Role in Darfur, Sudan"
      "Why Sudan Rejects UN Troops"

      Articles by Columbia University Professor Mahmood Mamdani
      "How Can We Name the Darfur Crisis: Preliminary Thought on Darfur"
      "The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency"

      "U.S. Imperialists Increase Efforts to Recolonize Sudan"
      by Natividad Carrera
      (quotes George Bush as saying The pervasive role played by the
      government of Sudan in Sudan's petroleum and petrochemical industries
      threatens U.S. national security and foreign policy interests)

      "Darfur, Imperialist Intevention and Anti-Arab Hysteria"
      by Eugene Puryear

      on African Holocaust . net
      "Myths About the Arab Slave Trade"
      by Owen `Alik Shahadah
      "Darfur Truth Report"

      "Thousands Protest in Darfur against Security Council Resolution for
      UN Deployment"

      Interview with Sudanese Compatriot Ismail Kamal

      "UN Peackeeping Paramilitarism"
      by Steve Lendman

      "While World Capitalists Spend Trillions on Wars, Hunger Kills 18,000
      Children Each Day"
      by Hassan El-Najjar


      Green-Rainbow Party Statement on U.S. Imperialism and Sudan
      November 2004

      We reject the racist mischaracterization of the situation in Darfur as
      genocide being perpetrated by Arabs. In reality, the conflict in
      Darfur is complex involving several warring armed factions. The US
      military and economic intervention over the last decade, which has
      worked to impoverish and destabilize Sudan, has largely caused the
      humanitarian crisis of civil war and famine in the Darfur region.

      We oppose any military intervention in Sudan by the US, the UN, or
      imposed by any other foreign power. We also oppose the imposition of
      sanctions on the Sudanese government, particularly since US sanctions
      since 1997 with selective aid to rebel groups have been used to
      exacerbate civil war in Sudan and since the world has witnessed
      sanctions under the UN being used as an instrument of genocide in Iraq.

      We recall the unprovoked criminal attack that destroyed the al-Shifa
      pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, launched by the Clinton administration
      in 1998, and call for the US government to pay reparations for this
      brutal transgression which rendered Sudan unable to produce needed
      human and veterinary pharmaceuticals. In 1967 Martin Luther King noted
      that the United States is the "greatest purveyor of violence in the
      world today." Given that this fact about the USA has remained true, we
      condemn the US government declaring Sudan a "terrorist" nation. The US
      should normalize relations with Sudan.

      In the short term, unconditional food aid and medical aid are needed
      and should be sent to the Darfur region. In the long term, we will
      work for an end to imperialist and corporate interventions in all
      their forms in Sudan and throughout Africa as these policies have lead
      to chronic war and poverty on the continent. African nations should
      have their debts forgiven, and they should be free to reject
      International Monetary Fund structural adjustment policies which
      benefit multi-national corporations to the detriment of local populations.

      We strongly condemn the practice of both the George Bush and John
      Kerry Presidential campaigns for distorting the human tragedy in
      Darfur for use towards domestic political ends and as a pretext for
      action to gain control over Sudanese oil that is currently being
      developed by China and other non-Western countries.


      Stop the U.S. and Zionist War Against Sudan
      By David Rolde
      Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts
      October 2006

      The United States has been waging war against Sudan for the past 15
      years, and we need to stop it. Just like with Iraq, the U.S. war
      against Sudan is a war for oil and a war for Israel. The proposed
      invasion of Sudan is based on lies. The lie of accusing the government
      of Sudan of "genocide in Darfur" serves the same function as the lie a
      few years ago accusing the government of Iraq of "possessing weapons
      of mass destruction". The U.S. government, and its allies the Israeli
      and UK governments, are the real world champion purveyors of genocide
      and possessors of WMDs.

      Sudan, the geographically largest country in Africa and the home of 35
      million people, has been devastated by U.S. attacks for the past 15
      years. In the early 90s the U.S. government declared Sudan to be a
      "state sponsor of terrorism" because the government of Sudan does not
      support Israel. The U.S. government imposed sanctions against Sudan.
      The U.S. sanctions and trade boycott escalated in severity several
      times during the 90s and 00s and damaged the Sudanese economy causing
      immense human suffering. Throughout the 90s the U.S. government armed
      and funded the SPLA rebels in the south of Sudan in a war against the
      Sudanese government, and against rival southern groups, in which
      millions of persons were killed or displaced. Millions of southern
      refugees fled from the SPLA and now live in Khartoum, the northern
      capital. The culmination of U.S. support for war in Sudan was the
      so-called "Sudan Peace Act", signed by George W Bush in 2002, which
      allocated one hundred million dollars per year to the SPLA.

      One notable episode of the US war against Sudan happened in 1998 when
      the U.S. government of Bill Clinton, with a missile strike, destroyed
      Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant, the al-Shifa plant near Khartoum.
      This rendered Sudan unable to produce needed human medications to
      treat endemic diseases such as malaria and also veterinary medicines
      needed by Sudan's livestock industry which is a major part of the
      livelihood of the people of Sudan.

      In 2004, during the U.S. presidential election campaign, the U.S.
      government started leveling false allegations of "genocide" against
      the Sudanese government in regards to the new civil war in Darfur in
      the west of Sudan. The U.S. media and pro-imperialist "human rights"
      organizations (such as Human Rights Watch which is controlled by
      billionaire George Soros and the Council on Foreign Relations) falsely
      portrayed the conflict in Darfur as a slaughter of Black Africans by a
      "White Arab" Sudanese government. In reality it was a civil war among
      many armed groups, some of which were supported by the US and Israel,
      fighting over limited resources in an impoverished region. Nearly
      everyone in Sudan is a Black African. And nearly everyone in Darfur
      is a Black African Arabic-speaking Muslim. The numbers cited for the
      "genocide" in Darfur were inflated estimates of how many people might
      die from famine and disease.

      This year the propaganda against Sudan in the United States has
      intensified again. On April 30, 2006, the U.S. government in
      conjunction with U.S. Zionist groups, staged a large pro-war rally in
      Washington DC. U.S. congresspersons, as well as members of the Bush
      administration, spoke at the rally calling for the war against Sudan
      to be escalated by sending in an invasion force of U.N., NATO or U.S.
      troops. Nearly every pro-Israel group in the USA has anti-Sudan
      propaganda on the front of their website. In Massachusetts an example
      of a Zionist group doing pro-war activism is the Jewish Community
      Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater Boston.

      The anti-Sudan rhetoric is no different than the rhetoric that the
      U.S. government uses against other countries that the United States is
      attacking. One aim of U.S. attacks against Sudan is to gain or
      maintain control over Sudan's natural resources: notably petroleum but
      also uranium, other minerals, gum arabic, and the Nile River which
      supplies water to Egypt. China currently has access to oil from
      Sudan, and the U.S. government wants to cut China off. Destabilizing
      and impoverishing Sudan serves American and Israeli hegemonic
      interests to make sure there are no prosperous independent nations in
      the Middle East and North African regions.

      But within the United States the anti-Sudan rhetoric is useful for
      more than just getting Americans ready for more overt war against
      Sudan. Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric regarding Sudan is part of
      the general anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda that is used to gain
      U.S. domestic support for the war in Iraq, continued U.S. support for
      Israel, and the so-called "war on terror". Zionist groups in the
      United States have been purveying anti-Arab propaganda regarding Sudan
      for many years before the Darfur war, making false claims about
      "slavery" in Sudan. Slave redemption efforts in Sudan have been shown
      to be a hoax. Divesting from Sudan is a Zionist anti-Arab
      counter-proposal to the idea of divesting from Israel. Lies about
      Arabs divert attention from efforts to end Israeli apartheid in

      On September 1, 2006, the US rammed a resolution through the UN
      Security Council calling for tens of thousands of UN troops,
      ostensibly "peace-keepers" but really an imperialist invasion force,
      to be sent to Darfur to replace the current smaller US-puppet African
      Union force. On September 17, Zionists and other pro-war Americans
      held an anti-Sudan rally in Central Park in New York City. The keynote
      speaker at the rally was Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of
      State, who is infamous for having admitted that the Clinton
      administration and the UN had killed half a million Iraqi children
      through the sanctions in the 90s but nevertheless defending the
      actions against Iraq as worthwhile. Rally attendees were asked to
      wear blue hats to signify their desire to send "blue helmet" UN troops
      to invade Sudan. These UN troops would not be "peace-keepers". We can
      see the likely outcome by looking at Haiti where, in 2004, the US
      deposed the legitimate government and then sent in a UN occupation
      force which has terrorized the country and brutalized the Haitian
      people. When foreign UN soldiers get to Darfur and can't determine
      which Black Arabic-speaking Muslims are the "bad Arabs" and which are
      the "good Africans", the UN troops will kill people indiscriminately.
      The Sudanese people will rightly resist. The situation will escalate.
      US warmongers will call for sending more troops, including US troops,
      and bringing the war to Khartoum. It will be a disaster. The US war
      against Sudan needs to be stopped and reversed now.

      Anti-war activists are not working hard enough to stop the US and
      Zionist war against Sudan. The current threats against Sudan are just
      as serious as the threats against Iran. Anti-war activists should be
      focusing more effort to stop the war against Sudan and to work against
      US imperialism in Africa in general - the current war against Sudan is
      just one manifestation of centuries of European colonialism and
      neo-colonialism in Sudan and Africa. The situation for the people of
      Sudan will improve once foreign intervention in Sudan stops.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.