Berlin calls Sudan's Darfur crisis a genocide

[Kellanved]

BERLIN, Sept 18 (AFP) -- German Defence Minister Peter Struck indicated for the first time that Berlin might contribute soldiers to a UN mission in Sudan's Darfur region, referring to the crisis there as "genocide" in an interview published Saturday.

"We cannot sit by while genocide is going on somewhere on the continent" (of Africa), Struck sold the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, becoming the first German minister to use the word genocide in reference to Darfur.

"The United Nations is studying the possibilitiees of action in Sudan. Therefore it would not be so stupid for we Germans to ask ourselves the question" over possible intervention, he added.

The UN Security Council was due to vote later Saturday on a US draft resolution pressing Sudan to rein in the Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, blamed for a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the ethnic black African natives of the vast western Darfur region.

...
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=5506

[gottaB]

1. The interview in Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German)

Wir können bei Völkermorden nicht einfach zusehen

Darfur is discussed on the second page.

[northzax]

2. and they would know, wouldn't they?

those soft uber liberal germans, always handwringing.

I think the US should send in the military to prevent genocide. what? our military is a little busy occupying Iraq? oh well, sorry Sudan, we have other priorities.

[reorg]

3. that is actually not what he said

while Mr. Struck is certainly one of the more right-wing members of the German government, was among the first in Germany to not rule out participation of NATO in the "stabilization" of Iraq almost a year or so ago, and is definitely among the new German imperialists who are in favor of a European rapid reaction force with the objective to "secure" regions with relevant resources - what is suggested here in this short sensationalist Sudan Tribune piece is just not true. He nowhere "refers" to what happens in Sudan as genocide, the translation of the Sudan Tribune distorts the relevant parts of the interview:


>> ...

SZ: From Kosovo to Africa: You have recently hinted that German soldiers could operate there, too. Is the Bundeswehr going to be deployed in Sudan soon?

Struck: This is not under consideration now. But I have no doubt that we Germans are responsible for this continent, too. We cannot just keep watching IF genocide is going on SOMEWHERE on this continent.


SZ: According to the US president this is what is going on in Sudan.

Struck: I believe this evaluation is NOT ENTIRELY WRONG. The European Parliament takes the same view. The European Council doesn't. The UN are exploring possiblities of what could be done (of action) in Sudan. So it is not entirely off-base for us Germans to look into this question (he clearly refers to the question of whether or not it is genocide, not "over possible intervention", which obviously is a secondary consideration and conditioned upon the former being found true).

SZ: And what could we do?

Struck: I WOULD NOT SPECULATE ON THAT. However, we definitely need to be able to deploy the Bundewehr in order to enforce peace, also in Africa.

SZ: Would such deployments get approval by the Bundestag?

Struck: This is a theoretical question and answering it is not on the agenda now. By the way, the deployment of forces (weapons) in order to save people is always merely a first step.

... <<


(The latter ominous remark seems to be in reference to yet unsolved differences in opinion with respect to the follow-up procedure. As in Kosovo, motivations and expected results by the interventionists may considerably differ ...)


-----------------

...


SZ: Vom Kosovo nach Afrika: Sie haben zuletzt angedeutet, dass auch dort deutsche Soldaten operieren könnten. Wird die Bundeswehr demnächst im Sudan eingesetzt werden?

Struck: Das steht jetzt nicht zur Debatte. Aber für mich gibt es keinen Zweifel, dass auch wir Deutsche für diesen Kontinent Verantwortung tragen. Wir können nicht einfach zusehen, wenn es an irgend einer Stelle des Kontinents zu Völkermorden kommt.

SZ: Nach Ansicht des US-Präsidenten geschieht im Sudan nichts anderes.

Struck: Ich glaube, dass diese Einschätzung nicht ganz falsch ist. Das Europäische Parlament sieht das genauso. Der Europäische Rat bewertet es anders. Die UN sondieren Möglichkeiten, was man in Sudan tun könne. So abwegig ist es also nicht, wenn wir Deutsche diese Frage wenigstens prüfen müssen. Klar ist aber, dass zunächst die Afrikanische Union in der Verantwortung steht.

SZ: Und was könnten wir tun?

Struck: Darüber will ich nicht spekulieren. Fest steht, dass die Bundeswehr zu Frieden erzwingenden Einsätzen in der Lage sein muss, auch in Afrika.

SZ: Wäre denn ein solcher Einsatz im Bundestag überhaupt durchsetzbar?

Struck: Das ist jetzt eine theoretische Frage, die zur Beantwortung nicht ansteht. Im übrigen gilt immer: Der Einsatz von Waffen zur Rettung von Menschen kann nur ein erster Schritt sein.

SZ: Aber erste Schritte wären solche Einsätze, wie sie die Briten und Franzosen in ihren Ex-Kolonien fahren?

Struck: Ja, durchaus. Wir schaffen ja Militäreinheiten, die auf die neuen weltweiten Bedrohungen reagieren können: die Nato Response Force, außerdem Battle-Groups der EU, die innerhalb kürzester Zeit zum Eingreifen bereit sein sollen. Es gibt in Afrika Regionen, wo solche Eingreiftruppen mit jeweils circa 1500 Soldaten reichen würden, um den Frieden wieder herzustellen.

SZ: Würde eine westliche Militärintervention im Sudan, also gegen eine islamistische Regierung, nicht wie im Irak den Terror geradezu heraufbeschwören?

Struck: Nein, diese Gefahr sehe ich eher nicht. Dafür ist die Verfolgung der Menschen in Darfur nicht ideologisch motiviert genug.

...

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/503/39464/3/

[gottaB]

4. Traduttore, Traditore

What Struck said is clear. The headline from the Sudan Tribune is in line with headlines from Süddeutsche Zeitung ("We can't simply watch a genocide") and Deutsche Welle ("Struck speaks of genocide in Sudan"). Reports from Reuters and der Spiegel and die Welt show no difficulty in divining exactly what Struck meant. For instance:

Verteidigungsminister Peter Struck hält einen Afrika-Einsatz der Bundeswehr für möglich. Man könne nicht einfach zusehen, wenn es zu Völkermorden komme, sagte er in einem Interview. Der UN-Sicherheitsrat stimmt heute über den jüngsten Vorstoß der USA zur Lösung der Krise in der sudanesischen Provinz Darfur ab.

Struck hält Afrika-Einsatz der Bundeswehr für möglich

The reason why Struck spoke of genocide "any where" in Africa is not because he wanted to avoid taking a position or stating the obvious. He surely had in mind the notion that German responsibility isn't limited to its former colonies. It doesn't desever to be the most salient point in the sentence, and the sentence can be presented without that point and still convey Struck's essential thinking about the crisis in Sudan: One doesn't sit back and watch a genocide unfold.

For the record, Struck is SPD. I know you disagree with the defense policy of the government, but others should know that the SPD does not represent the right wing in Germany.

[reorg]

8. the quote from der Der Spiegel is correct:

"Defense minister Peter Struck deems possible the deployment of the Bundeswehr in Africa."

(Comment: absolutely, he is very explicit in stating that, note that he very generally speaks of AFRICA)

One cannot just watch (sit by) if it comes to genocide, he said in an interview.

(Exactly, that's what he said, IF it comes to genocide)

Nowhere he states, however, that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide. He speaks of some interpretations that may not be "entirely wrong". Read again my translation and show us (or if you can, point to the German text) where he allegedly does. He also does not threaten German troop deployment. He does just the opposite, saying that is not what is on the agenda.

And for the record, the SPD does indeed not represent the right wing in Germany (as I nowhere implied). They represent the "realist" moderates. Mr. Struck, however, does represent the right wing in the SPD, and in the government (as "defense" ministers almost always do).

What's more, the SPD is currently undergoing a transformation, carrying out more of the right-wing agenda than their right wing opponents were ever able to do, which includes not only their pro-active military policies but also their social cuts that have driven major parts of the left wing out of their party. Currently a new left party is in the process of forming itself and I am proud to say that I am a member of this initiative: Wahlalternative. Our most prominent supporter is Oskar Lafontaine, chairman of the SPD when they were elected into office in 1998, who left the goverment in protest. He was opposed to the Kosovo bombings, to the social cuts, and to the entire drift to the right. He will feel much more at home in the new party, which is forecasted to receive possibly more than 10% of the vote (while the SPD is losing EVERYWHERE they went to the polls since their last Bundestag victory under the false label of an anti-war party).

http://www.wahlalternative.de/positionen.php


on edit: Wahlaternative is not forming the "third" party, as I erroneously said. It will be the fifth party of relevance in Germay, three of which will then be to the left of the SPD. It will hopefully be the third largest of all.

[reorg]

11. other quotes - what the Germans are up to

Der Tagesspiegel (left of center, not neo-conservative scum like Die Welt) report truthfully:

>> (19.09.2004 ) Berlin - Defense minister Peter Struck (SPD) has INDIRECTLY referred to the conflict in Sudan as genocide. The assessment of US president George W. Bush that exactly this is what is currently going on in Sudan was characterised by Struck as "not entirely wrong". <<

-------------------

Berlin - Verteidigungsminister Peter Struck (SPD) hat den Konflikt in Sudans Krisenregion Darfur indirekt als Völkermord bezeichnet. Die Einschätzung von US-Präsident George W. Bush, dass in Sudan genau dies derzeit geschehe, bezeichnete Struck als „nicht ganz falsch“.

-------------------


The headline, I admit, is somewhat sexed up, like in the other papers:

Struck sees genocide in Sudan / Struck sieht Völkermord in Sudan

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/index.asp?gotos=http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/toolbox-neu.php?ran=on&url=http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/19.09.2004/1369047.asp#art


But I'm willing to wage any bet that if asked to DIRECTLY confirm this, Mr. Struck will answer: I never said that ... bla bla bla ...


An interesting piece was printed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the well informed, if always old-fashioned and naturally straightforward conservative opinion leader, some time ago on March 17 of this year. This was after the peace agreement in February and shortly before HRW came out with their allegations in April:

... But Ms. Eid prophesied in the Bundestag debate on Africa that international military intervention to enforce peace may become necessary also in Africa, despite broad engagement in civil conflict prevention efforts, and capacity building measures enabling African countries to handle peace-keeping on their own. And the Parliamentarian Secretary of State (deputy of Minister for Economic Co-operation) and member of the Green party added, according to her "personal opinion" Germany must be willing to take responsiblity towards Africa "in extreme situations" also by military means. Ms. Eid pointed at such comments by Defense Minister Struck; she was in agreement with him in this respect. (...)

When she stated that German personnel would have to be part of a UN control mission in case of a peace agreement in Sudan, the minister of state in the Foreign Office (one of two deputies of the Foreign Minister), Müller, was first met with silence, then with lack of understanding. Speculation arises that noticable stronger German engagement in African countries may be the result of an inofficial transatlantic division of labor and thus compensation for the refusal of German participation in Iraq. The counter-argument from the perspective of the Foreign Office may be that the strategy of civilian dominated conflict-resolution, striving for regional self-determination, follows a peculiar credo of the current government, and is explicitly based on the principles of multi-lateral diversity.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3/17/2004, No. 65 / Page 12


-------------

Frau Eid prophezeite aber in der Afrika-Debatte des Bundestages, daß konfliktbeendende militärische Interventionen der internationalen Gemeinschaft auch künftig in Afrika notwendig werden könnten, ungeachtet des umfassendsten Engagements in ziviler Konfliktverhütung und der besten Schulung der afrikanischen Länder in der eigenen Handhabung effektiver Friedenseinsätze. Und die bei den Grünen beheimatete Parlamentarische Staatssekretärin fügte hinzu, ihrer "persönlichen Meinung" nach müsse Deutschland auch willens sein, "in Extremsituationen" Verantwortung gegenüber Afrika auch mit militärischen Mitteln wahrzunehmen. Frau Eid verwies auf entsprechende Äußerungen von Verteidigungsminister Struck; sie sei sich mit ihm in dieser Haltung einig. Struck hatte vor vierzehn Tagen geäußert, beim Blick auf die Schwierigkeiten afrikanischer Länder könne man zwar anführen, "daß unsere Kolonialzeit schon lange vorbei ist". Dennoch ergebe sich eine "besondere Verantwortung" für die deutsche Außenpolitik daraus, daß afrikanische Länder bedeutsam seien für die Beherbergung oder Duldung islamistischer Terroristen, die dann auch europäische Länder bedrohten. Die Entsendung deutscher Soldaten stehe aber immer unter der Voraussetzung eines UN-Beschlusses, mit dem Deutschland, die EU oder die Nato um Hilfe gebeten werde.

(...)

Die Staatsministerin im Auswärtigen Amt Müller erntete vor einigen Monaten erst Schweigen, dann Unverständnis, als sie feststellte, im Falle eines Friedensschlusses in Sudan sei auch deutsches Personal als Bestandteil einer UN-Kontrollmission notwendig. Es entstehen Mutmaßungen, das bemerkbar stärkere deutsche Engagement in afrikanischen Ländern sei womöglich Ergebnis einer inoffiziellen transatlantischen Arbeitsteilung und somit ein Ersatz für verweigerte deutsche Beiträge im Irak. Dem läßt sich aus der Sicht des Auswärtigen Amtes entgegenhalten, daß die Strategie einer möglichst zivil bestimmten, regionale Eigenverantwortung erstrebenden Konfliktlösung durchaus einem ureigenen Credo der gegenwärtigen Bundesregierung folge, ja daß sie ausdrücklich auf die Prinzipien einer multilateralen Vielfalt gestützt sei.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17.03.2004, Nr. 65 / Seite 12


http://www.faz.net/s/RubFC06D389EE76479E9E76425072B196C3/Doc~ECE36042A71964E5F91257B9E3AD46269~ATpl~Ecommon~Sprintpage.html

[reorg]

12. representing the left wing

turns out today that the SPD is now even with the NPD in Saxony ... 9,4 percent each. The more they drift to the right, the more insignificant do they get.

In Brandenburg, the region around Berlin, they still form the government, in coalition with the (in Brandenburg far right) CDU. Even though they heavily lost: 7 percentage points, almost all of which went to the PDS.

Both in Saxony and in Brandenburg, almost 30 percent of all voters are now to the left of the SPD.

[Kellanved]

7. You lost me somewhere.

So a EU rapid reaction force is German imperialist? This is rather interesting, considering the multinational layout of the EU.

I have read the complete interview before posting and found the AFP story to be quite correct, if a little too short.

[reorg]

9. are you denying that Germany is a dominant force in the EU?

The AFP story is an interpretation with a certain spin. Yes, you can read into Struck's remarks the desire to make the deployment of German troops all over the world a quite natural, decent thing. It is almost touching how much he cares about the well-being of all those underdeveloped, war-ridden peoples.

That Germany's company Thormaehlen has already signed a contract with Southern rebel leader Garang to build a railway track from the Sudan to Mombasa which is worth a few billion, that is not within Struck's area of expertise and responsiblity. So why would he even mention it? Or the fact that this is how the oil is supposed to leave the Sudan, instead of through pipelines built by India or China? Imagine the possibilities, so many infrastructure projects looming in Africa when they'll finally get to shipping all those resources.

[Just Me]

5. Where are the Bush "saviors"?

*uncomfortable silence*

[BeHereNow]

6. BHN calls depleted unranium in Iraq

genocide of Iraqis, American and coalition troops...
Too bad no one can come help out there-
they'd be exposing their troops to radiation too.

[wsswss]

13. Aaarrghhh

Just because "depleted uranium" has the word "uranium" in it doesn't erase the fact that DU is extremely NONradioactive. Half-life = 4.5 billion years. Learn what half-life means, confirm my figure, and stop repeating these ignorant statements that DU is some sort of dangerous radioactive munition.

If there is any danger in using DU, it has to do with this heavy metal turning to dust and entering the lungs. This is no different from the risk posed by lead munitions.

[Amigust]

10. Shuffling their feet

And while the UN shuffles its feet, at least 1000 a day are dying.

http://amigust.blogspot.com