During last week’s Vice Presidential debate, Governor Palin stated that once she “found out” that her state’s large investment funds held stock in companies linked to the Darfur genocide, she worked to divest from them, in a stand against Sudan’s brutal genocide. Dozens of other states have divested from companies linked to the government-sponsored genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region. The facts show the Governor did not in fact take a stand on this issue when she “found out” about it.  A recently discovered 2006 letter, other documents, and records of legislative committee testimony show the Palin Administration opposed efforts by Alaska legislators to pass a Darfur divestment bill until near the end of the 2007-2008 legislative session.

Last week, during the vice presidential debate between Republican nominee Governor Sarah Palin and Democratic nominee Senator Joe Biden, a very interesting - and promising - exchange brough Darfur to the forefront of the 2008 election:

From SaveDarfur:

You can learn more about the candidates’ Darfur positions at AddYourVoice.org.

IFILL: Senator, you have quite a record, this is the next question here, of being an interventionist. You argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground. Boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?
BIDEN: I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia. I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked. Look what we did in Bosnia. We took Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, being told by everyone, I was told by everyone that this would mean that they had been killing each other for a thousand years, it would never work.

There’s a relatively stable government there now as in Kosovo. With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to — I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.

I, along with Dick Lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we need, we’d be there for a decade and it’d cost us tens of billions of dollars. John McCain said, no, it was going to be OK.

I don’t have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It’s within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we’re willing to take a hard stand. We can, I’ve been in those camps in Chad. I’ve seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide.

IFILL: Thank you, senator. Governor.

PALIN: Oh, yeah, it’s so obvious I’m a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You’re one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.

And you had supported John McCain’s military strategies pretty adamantly until this race and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama’s military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops that attempt all through the primary.

And I watched those debates, so I remember what those were all about.

But as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also, the supported of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.

America is in a position to help. What I’ve done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that’s pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn’t passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.

IFILL: Is there a line that should be drawn about when we decide to go in?

BIDEN: Absolutely. There is a line that should be drawn.

IFILL: What is it?

BIDEN: The line that should be drawn is whether we A, first of all have the capacity to do anything about it number one. And number two, certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack’s view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all.

The truth of the matter is, though, let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy. I never supported John McCain’s strategy on the war. John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said, go back and look at Barack Obama’s statements and mine. Go look at joebiden.com, contemporaneously, held hearings in the summer before we went to war, saying if we went to war, we would not be greeted as liberator, we would have a fight between Sunnis and Shias, we would be tied down for a decade and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.

John McCain was saying the exact opposite. John McCain was lock- step with Dick Cheney at that point how this was going to be easy. So John McCain’s strategy in this war, not just whether or not to go, the actual conduct of the war has been absolutely wrong from the outset.

IFILL: Governor.

PALIN: I beg to disagree with you, again, here on whether you supported Barack Obama or John McCain’s strategies. Here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this, but we listened to the debates.

I think tomorrow morning, the pundits are going to start do the who said what at what time and we’ll have proof of some of this, but, again, John McCain who knows how to win a war. Who’s been there and he’s faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military.

He knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen in the war in Iraq, especially. He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He’ll know how to win a war.

IFILL: Thank you, governor.

I refrained from saying flat out, "point proved, the intolerance cuts both ways."

I found the following today by Stanley Fish:

Politics and the Pulpit (Once Again).

Fish grapples with many of the Constitutional nuances of the debate, and although his specific concern is the tax exempt status of churches, he explicates concerns similar to mine with more insight, experience, and skill. His analysis is worth reading. He writes in his conclusion that "[t]he bottom line is that there is no rational or principled or constitutional resolution to this conflict. The resolution, if there is one, will have to be political. Either the Johnson amendment will be repealed or it won’t be. And when one or the other happens, the boundaries between church and state, at least with respect to this issue, will have been settled — for a while."

The reader's comments are lively and diverse, and worth scanning.

Most social activism and change comes from the belief that all humans are "created equal," and that this truth, often framed in the language of religion, must be politically realized. The morality of equality and the immorality of social oppression has fundamentally shaped human development. Unfortunately, the assorted maps to broader and more inclusive equality are diverse and subject to interpretation. For that reason, I'm sympathetic to Fish's analysis: the roads to heaven and hell are paved with the best of intentions, and politics reflects the best and worst of our ideas, writ large.

Professor Fish's bio and his intellectual predispositions can be read here.

As a post-script to my first entry on the V. P. debate, in Sojourners this week, Elizabeth Palmberg writes in her entry "V. P. Debate’s Blind Spots on Darfur" that Biden, Palin, and Ifill all got it in part wrong on Darfur last week. She states that "talk of boots on the ground misses the point: what we need on the ground is the wingtips and sensible pumps of real diplomats, backed up by real economic consequences for Khartoum, including an array of new, substantive economic sanctions on Sudan (which has learned to circumvent the ones we imposed years ago). This would enable the various groups in Darfur –- armed and, most importantly, unarmed –- to come together and negotiate with Kharoum from a position of strength, as their neighbors in southern Sudan did in 2005."

Her entry is short and worth the minute or two it takes to read.

But Sudan's armed forces denied any plans to attack Kalma camp, home to around 90,000 people who have fled more than five years of fighting in Sudan's remote west.The U.N.-African Union UNAMID force said it would carry out 24-hour patrols of Kalma camp, "as a result of recent alleged threats of an attack on the camp by the Government of Sudan Forces".

Force spokesman Kemal Saiki did not go into detail about the source of the threats.More than 30 Kalma residents were killed when soldiers and armed police raided the camp in August, saying they were searching for weapons and suspects.

Tensions rose again in the camp last week when Sudanese interior ministry officials accused camp residents of shooting down a UNAMID-contracted helicopter, killing all four people on board.Aid sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there were growing fears authorities would use the investigation into the helicopter crash as an excuse to raid the camp again.

But a spokesman for Sudan's armed forces told Reuters: "There is no possibility of any attack on this camp by the armed forces, or on any other camp in Darfur."The Sudanese government has long said Kalma has become a base and weapon store for bandits and rebel groups.

Rebels and camp activists have denied the accusation, saying the government is trying to clear the camp as part of a forced resettlement programme.

The growing tension at Kalma comes at a sensitive time for Khartoum which is stepping up diplomatic efforts to block a move by the International Criminal Court to indict Sudan's president for war crimes in Darfur.

State media on Monday reported high-level delegations were holding talks with "senior officials" in Britain and France, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council with the power to veto any attempt to delay the global court's action.

SOURCED FROM REUTERS

But there is one issue I have been at odds with this segment of the population for a very long time – its love affair with the modern nation-state of Israel, and the distortions this has brought to Christian worldview.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no different than most Americans or Christians when it comes to the view that a safe haven for the Jewish people in their ancient homeland is an important goal for America to support.

It is the reasons we nurture that goal and the results that follow, that trouble me.

For the past 100 years, there has been a move among the superpowers of the world to create, then support, and to some extent, even sustain a nation-state for the Jewish people in the region of the fertile crescent. In America, this movement was first led by Woodrow Wilson, yet over time, it’s banner has been passed to what is now the “Neo-conservative” movement.

Essentially, the Neo-conservatives and evangelicals have one thing in common – they would do anything to keep Israel alive, strong and under the rule of conservative or Orthodox Jews. Though they share this common goal, their motives are quite different.

For the Neocon, Israel represents the gateway to the spread of the American ideal – American style democracy for the rest of the world. (It is also lead by many conservative Jews who are closely allied with non-Jewish politicians on the Right.) Oddly, their opponents, most notably Jimmy Carter, want to spread some sense of American democracy, “hegemony”, around the globe too (making it hard to understand how a faithful progressive would support this effort), but they take very different approaches to attaining this goal.

The Neocons believe in a truly top down style of leadership in democracy. While this is rather antithetical to the notion of democracy, they look at the American experiment and see that if it had not been for a group of men like Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, we would not have established the United States as we did. Therefore, the Neocons look for potential leaders in other countries and do their level best to help them light the fire within their own countries.

The establishment faction of the American Left believes in the approach of the “world community” coming together – the United Nations should essentially mediate the develop of new democracies – and we should help lead this effort. These two approaches, you might observe, are highly dependent on each other – which is interesting.

And the Neocon effort is also highly dependent on its cheering section – which is comprised of a sizeable segment of the evangelical right. Somehow, the mainstream media overlooks this group’s love affair with Israel and mistakenly lumps other evangelicals in with them. (To be sure, certain evangelical denominations like the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, are completely at odds with the Neocons on issues of foreign policy.) This is surprising given the media bent toward the left, the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, and the close connections that exist between right wing foreign policy and Israel.

It is also surprising because the Neocon’s cheering section is highly discreet. Essentially it is made up of two segments of evangelicals – dispensationalists, who are largely Baptist, and charismatics, who are closely connected to the Assemblies of God denomination. And while the dispensationalists have been providing biblical interpretation and intellectual juice to the movement for well over 100 years, it is the charismatic faction that has brought numbers of people and extraordinary zeal to their cause.

Of course, you need to understand what this zeal is all about. Am I saying that Christians, are embracing the leadership of a nation governed by people who deny the Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ? Well, actually yes – I am. But why would they do this?

The answer lies in their devotion to a belief that Christ is going to return to the earth in the very near future, that he will return to Israel, destroy his enemies, and in some corners, actually restore the ancient temple and reinstate the system of animal sacrifice.

Now, I’m just going to be blunt here – this last idea bears no relation to any historical Christian belief and I think it is truly an inane interpretation of scripture.

Think about this with some clarity: why would the writers of scripture – who were intentional and instrumental in bringing an end to the system of sacrifice for the very reason that Christ’ own sacrifice was sufficient “once for all” – have written words that someday would become the very words used to help reinstate the system they intended to see terminated for all time?

Yet popular televangelists and preachers, like Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, John Hagee all preach their own variations on this theme, and dozens of others, largely promoted through the medium of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, sound the constant battle cry for Americans, lead by Christians, to make the pathway clear for Christ’s imminent return in Israel. This, they tell us, will be accomplished first by “winning” the war in Iraq, then ridding Israel of the threat it faces from Iran, and any other nation who would dare step up and threaten the place “where Jesus walked”.

To be sure, it is not just the televangelists and TBN who have actualized this movement. There are literally hundreds of church pastors, “prophets”, “apostles” and “prayer warriors” busily pilfering the pockets of simple grandmothers, and naïve young men who are sincerely and eagerly awaiting Christ’s return, so much so that they allow themselves to be spoon fed “another gospel” than the gospel of salvation through the cross. I know, there are people in my family who have been lead down this path.

Now I have never been one to think of the walk of faith as a mere acknowledgement of one’s salvation. Rather I believe we all have important roles to play because of who we are. My point is that we are foolish to work against the precepts of our own faith, and that is what millions of Christians are being taught they should do.

And this zeal behind the dispensational/charismatic support for the modern state of Israel has become the tool of some very, very bad foreign policy. Foreign policy that even serves to hinder Christianity as it exists around the world.

Most famously, it is worthy of note that the foreign policy of Bush-Cheney-Rice pursues war in Iraq, and somewhat in Afghanistan, and has virtually ignored the genocide in Darfur that is largely perpetrated by radical Muslims against Christians.

And this foreign policy has been wholeheartedly supported by the fanatical segment of evangelical Christians. What are they thinking?

It will not be easy for anyone to step into these circles and turn their followers back to a sensible view of biblical interpretation and Christian faith. I know, I’ve tried. Anyone who does will be met with catcalls, accusations of infidelity to Christ, and sometimes, demon possession.

If you question their positions in any way, you are quickly turned out of dialogue, discussion and any possibility of being heard by these folks. They don’t want to hear it. All they want is a new temple – 2,000 years of Christianity be damned!

Getting the new temple means, establishing a government – that would be Orthodox or at least, conservative Jews – who will see the task through. That means that protection of the state of Israel from anyone who would threaten its most conservative policies becomes an American policy imperative – and applies to anyone who might threaten the state of Israel.

An interesting dynamic that is emerging in this puzzle is the role of China. China now has more evangelical Christians living within its own borders than does the United States. China is also fast becoming one of the foremost allies of Israel– quite interesting indeed. How this will play out is not yet foreseeable – but be sure that the prophets and apostles of the off-the-charts religious right will be pontificating loudly to their own constituencies about whether China is part of “Anti-Christ”, or to be seen as an ally in propping up Israel for Christ’s return.

Regardless, my purpose in making this post, is to try to reach out to the media on the secular left and motivate them to call out the religious right on a matter of substance.

Personally, I have long believed that standing for a “culture of life” as Roman Catholics and other Christians have been doing for a generation, is a noble thing. For just as long, the media has unfortunately pilloried the Right over this stand.

Yet, it would be logical, fair and sound for the media to challenge and raise doubt about the Christian Right on the moral inconsistency and, really, hypocrisy, of preaching about a culture of life while advocating war in Iraq, and remaining shamefully quiet about the genocide in Darfur. Who are these people who would propound such ill teachings? Call them out – name their names – show what they are doing for what it is – misleading their own flock, and perpetrating unending violence in the Middle East.

When that finally happens, perhaps real change can be gained in American foreign policy. Until then, I doubt it will matter who is President, or in Congress. The zealous supporters of Israel won’t give up their swords easily. They will be back!

Sudan criticised both U.S. vice-presidential contenders on Sunday for suggesting they might support a no-fly zone over Darfur, saying the plan showed they knew little about the conflict.

United Nations officials, aid groups and rebels have repeatedly accused the Sudanese government of using Antonov aircraft and helicopters to attack rebel positions and villages in more than five years of fighting in Darfur.

Many activists have called for the U.N. to police a no-fly zone over the region to stop attacks.

Sarah Palin, the Republican governor of Alaska, said she supported a flight ban in Sudan's remote west during a televised debate with her Democratic rival Joe Biden on Thursday.

Biden, the Democratic senator from Delaware, did not explicitly call for a ban but said: "I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It is within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we are willing to take a hard stand."

But Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig on Sunday dismissed the statements of both candidates saying a no-fly zone would be impractical and useless.

"They know very little about what is going on here," he said. "Their statements were meant for local consumption. They had nothing to do with Darfur."

Sadig said an air ban would be ineffective because the Sudanese armed forces were not using aircraft in their ongoing struggle against rebel groups in Darfur.

He said government planes and helicopters were only being used to fight bandits and protect humanitarian convoys.

"It would be a very short-sighted move. Curbing the actions of the armed forces would impede the flow of humanitarian aid to Darfur and tie the hands of the government in its efforts to prevent attacks on aid convoys," he added.

Earlier his year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would like to move ahead with a no-fly zone for Darfur "if it were at all possible

SOURCED FROM REUTERS

The Alaska Permanent Fund was created in 1976 in order to set aside a share of oil revenues to benefit current and future generations. Alaskans have been encouraging the Permanent Fund Corporation’s Board to diversify our investments and move to a socially responsible investment model. I, along with many other concerned Alaskans, testified last year at the annual permanent fund board of directors meeting held in Anchorage. Norway’s successful Petroleum Fund and it’s ethics board were held up as a shining example of how divestment could both be socially responsible and profitable-investment with a conscience. I was told by Mike Burns, Executive Director , that if I wanted the investment charter to include more than just a financial directive, I would need to take it up with the legislature. The genocide in Darfur seemed urgent and evidence enough to stop investing in companies who ignore slaughter to maximize profit. If there was a chance Alaskans could help end far away atrocities by divesting our $36 Billion portfolio from these businesses, we should. My testimony was met with ambivalence; the feeling you get when someone in customer service tells you it’s ‘not their department.’ It occurred to me if the Darfur victims’ age were recorded in trimesters instead of years, the ongoing Genocide of Innocents in Africa might get the same attention and support as abortion legislation.

I was not surprised by Sarah’s debate performance. The press had set the bar so low, she would have been deemed a success if she had only pointed out America’s need for more maps, ala Miss South Carolina. Palin had been outfitted with a “Chatty Cathy Doll” box, and needed only to pull the string for the perfect Neocon talking point. I laughed at her “women’s rights” comment. I recognized her skill at avoiding the question through my own experience of interviewing her. But her comment about Darfur, taking unearned credit, and knowing how it played to Americans, sent me through the roof.

PALIN SAID: “We have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund. When I and others in the legislature found out that we had hundreds of millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment so we wouldn't be doing anything that could be seen as condoning activity in Darfur. That legislation hasn't passed yet but it needs to because all of us as individuals and humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that side of the world.”

PALIN LIED.

On December 5^th, 2007, Alaskans for Darfur screened the film, “The Devil Came on Horseback” at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. There was a postcard campaign that night to encourage the legislature and Governor Palin to divest Alaska’s money of blood. The program announcement said, “We will also be there to help attendees write their legislators to ask for divestment of Alaska funds from companies that assist the Sudanese Government in its genocide campaign and to write Governor Palin to ask her to reject Sinopec's bid to build the Alaska Gas Pipeline.” I was in attendance, and know Alaskans were taking this to heart. Governor Palin was aware of the divestment legislation as early as December 2007. Save Darfur met with her staff at the Governor's Anchorage Office to discuss Sinopec's role in the Alaska Gas Pipeline and to request her support for targeted divestment from Sudan. It turned out Sinopec did not get the license to build the pipeline, but many felt they should not even be considered given their record in Sudan.

Last December 11^th, I posted this on my radio show blog:
“Ok, Mike Burns has graciously agreed to re-open the public testimony tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 9am at the Hilton, Dillingham room...So I would love to see as many of us there as possible. It is our chance to ask them to consider an ethical approach to our PFD investments. I'll be there, if you want to call in, try the teleconference line...
Thanks, All!
Shannyn”

Mr. Burns response to me and many others who came before him was one of tied hands. He said there was no directive for the board to divest and be socially responsible, and this was a matter best taken up with the legislature. Five weeks later, on January 18^th, Representatives Les Gara-D and Bob Lynn-R co-sponsored House Bill 287 to make such a directive.

The same Mike Burns who had given the directive was opposed to the Darfur Divestment Bill. “A bill before the Legislature would force managers of the Alaska Permanent Fund to dump stocks of companies doing business in Sudan, whose government has been blamed for genocidal killings in Darfur. The measure also would apply to state retirement fund investments. Alaska's money managers oppose the bill. Managers of the state savings accounts say House Bill 287 would complicate their work, raise expenses and have little effect in Darfur. Managing money according to a social or political agenda is a bad bet."

Palin Appoints the Board of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. “Alaska is a young, growing state where we are still making important decisions that will guide development of our economy and infrastructure,” Governor Palin said. “The Alaskans I have selected to fill these positions share my faith in the state’s future and my commitment to the highest level of integrity in public service.” They were all very much aware of the Darfur divestment issues and House Bill 287. They were opposed to it. Sarah Palin’s claim that she led the charge to stop state investment in Sudan "once she found out" is ludicrous.

On February 9, 2008, Governor Sarah Palin’s appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Treasury Division, Brian Andrews, spoke to the Alaska House State Affairs Committee on bipartisan HB 287, which would require the state to divest from Sudan. He agreed with Mike Burns who said divestment was ‘not the right tool.’ He stated, "The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination." He also said the bill “should be amended…in the Finance Committee” and said that the Department of Revenue was “working with the Department of Law... to actually take certain actions with regard to divestiture that would still be compliant with the state investment laws.”

The Palin administration OPPOSED divestment. Brian Andrews testified against the bill. After that testimony, Democrat Representative Les Gara called a series of meetings with the Administration encouraging them to drop their opposition to Darfur Divestment. He called on them to support the bill, a complete reversal of their public position. In March, 2008, they successfully killed the House bill by bottling it up in the House State Affairs Committee. Neither Palin, nor her administration did anything to encourage change in the votes of the four Republicans who were against moving the bill out of committee. As late as mid-March 2008, the governor was not on board with the divestment legislation. A member of the Save Darfur Anchorage group received a reply dated March 11, 2008, wherein the Governor again declined on the opportunity to support divestment. The Legislature adjourned Sine Die on April 13.

Sarah Palin was called on to divest State Funds from Sudan in 2006 by Congress. She did nothing.

Sarah Palin was aware of the press coverage and postcard campaign in 2007. She did nothing.

Sarah Palin knew when the Save Darfur Coalition met with her staff in 2007. She did nothing.

Sarah Palin knew when House Bill 287 was filed in 2008. She did nothing.

Governor Sarah Palin, in fact, took no leadership role to fight for Darfur divestment. She dismissed pleas for help. She only changed her position in 2008, a year and a half after first being asked. Republican Bob Lynn, co-sponsor of HB287, authored a press release today stating “Governor Sarah Palin was a strong supporter of HB287 in the Alaska House.” He has her support for introducing a similar bill in the new session starting January. Bob Lynn is not addressing the issue. The debate is about her stating she acted as soon as she knew. She did not. Only late in the session, after her own administration had testified against the bill, when public support for the bill was building, did she say anything different. Too little, too late. Alaska is still invested in known companies who fund the Sudanese and subsequently the Jinjaweed.

Many good people in Alaska serve a greater humanity; feeding and housing Sudanese refuges, raising awareness, testifying to the PFD board and legislature. Sarah Palin coat tailing on the hard work of these Alaskans is disingenuous at best. Her taking credit in front of 70 million viewers was indicative of her lust for the White House and revulsion of the truth. In the meantime, innocent people are being murdered, Alaska has not divested, and our hands are covered in blood.

]]> http://fletcherfila.wordpress.com/?p=26 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:28:26 +0000 fletcherfila http://fletcherfila.ca.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/intervention-some-food-for-thought-on-a-fletcher-favourite/ I was watching the Biden-Palin (or Palin-Biden, if you wish) debate on Thursday. In the course of observing the "thrust and parry" between the two, I was struck by the unanimity in which they both agreed that something had to be done about the situation in Darfur. That something would take the form of a no-fly zone over Darfur. Sudan claims that government aircraft are being used to fight bandits and protect humanitarian convoys. Both Vice-Presidential candidates will probably beg to differ.

More pertinently, the exchange between both candidates probably signals a continuation of US policy with respect to intervention and continues the “responsibility to protect” debate. This ties in to a pet Fletcher School international law topic: the limits of use of force in international law. Prof. Glennon suggests the UN Charter Art .2(4) provision has fallen into desuetude. I.e. it no longer functions as a relevant rule of international law.

Can there be no international law governing use of force by states?

Doctrinally, there are two rules at stake, the treaty rule in Art. 2(4) and the customary international law (“CIL”) rule which reflects Art. 2(4) in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases sense. The pertinent question is ask is where the two rules stand. The answer for the CIL rule is easily answered by Prof. Glennon. Repeated violations of Art. 2(4) have resulted in the CIL rule falling into disuse and desuetude. But the treaty rule remains. Can a treaty rule fall into desuetude to the extent that the obligations contained in it are eliminated?

Conventional international law embodied in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says no. Treaties are products of the strictest consent and only consent can terminate their operations. However, treaties are also contextual instruments which are interpreted with regard to circumstances. Further, treaties become irrelevant depending on context as well. For example, the treaty obligations of a state vary in occasions of state succession, doctrinal international lawyers have placed distinctions between personal treaties and dispositive treaties.

Treaty rules also become irrelevant because of developing CIL rules. If all of us sign a treaty to purchase each other’s apples today, what happens in ten years when none of us want to eat or purchase any apples at all? We are still obliged to purchase each other’s apples, but, we tacitly agree that no one of wants apples and will not enforce that treaty. We, by CIL, have agreed to do so.

Applied to the Art. 2(4), the response in my mind, when Prof. Glennon speaks of desuetude is not shock and awe over how such an important rule has gone into demise and how can we live without it. In my mind, it is a simple question of CIL trumping treaty rules. A new CIL rule on use of force has emerged which is different from Art. 2(4). If we look back in history, the story of CIL’s primacy over treaty rules is a trite one. JL Brierly did not even consider treaties to be real international law. He opined that the only real international rules were CIL rules.

So what is the new rule governing use of force? I can’t give anything close to an answer, though I suspect some scientific analysis (rather than anecdotal evidence) of state practice and opinion juris may be necessary. Can any empiricists out there help us out?

I went online to gather more information about the Darfur genocide and ways to help stop it. During my research, I found an interesting connection to fashion. I learned from an article that fashion conglomerate Louis Vuitton has filed a lawsuit against a student artist for copyright infringement over her Simple Living campaign, a fundraiser for the victims of Darfur.

Nadia Plesner has designed posters and t-shirts dressing up a Darfur victim with a chihuahua and a Louis Vuitton inspired bag. The drawings are a mockery of the Paris Hilton-esque images that flood the media today. The artist said that the media has a distorted way of prioritizing between big and small world news, so she decided to use a recognizable image to bring attention to the tragedies in Darfur. All proceeds from the sale of the items go to the Divest for Darfur organisation.

Darfur- a region in the west of Sudan-home to 6 million Muslims of African descent has long been ruled by  fundamentalist Islamic leaders who believe that only those born of Arab descent are "pure Muslims". People from this region are being systematically displaced and murdered by the Janjaweed- a government supported militia recruited from local Arab tribes. The genocide in Darfur has clamied 400,000 lives and displaced over 2,500,000 people since 2003. The U.N. calls the genocide in Sudan today's greatest humanatarian crisis.

I think that Louis Vuitton is acting a bit too harsh considering that the images are being used for a good cause. I am always against copyright infringements and I support L.V's right to protect its image and designs but I feel that this particular case calls for some concession.

What do you think???

Sarah Palin lied about Darfur and divestment at the "VeePee" debate last week.

I know, I know.  You're shocked, right?  I know I am.

Palin Team Opposed Divesting of Holdings to Protest Darfur

(Washington Post) October 4 -

"When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur."  - Sarah Palin, vice presidential debate, Oct. 2.

Sarah Palin suggested that she was at the forefront of a campaign in Alaska to sell stock in companies that do business with Sudan in protest against the mass killing of civilians in the western part of the country. But the record shows that her administration was against the divestiture movement before it was for it.

The Facts

The Save Darfur Coalition has been urging states to divest of stocks from companies that do business with Sudan for the last two years, arguing that the investments "help fund genocide." An Alaska saving fund, the Alaska Permanent Fund, has about $22 million invested in international trading companies, such as China Petroleum and Alstom of France, that do business with Sudanese oil interests.

Alaska Permanent Fund officials made clear from the outset that they were opposed to any divestiture effort. Executive director Mike Burns told an Anchorage TV station, KTUU, on Dec. 11 that the fund was looking for the "best return" on the investments and never took into account "socially responsible investments . . . whether it's tobacco or alcohol or hospitals that perform abortions or hospitals that don't perform abortions."

Last January, a bill known as HB 287 was introduced into the Alaska House of Representatives to restrict investments in companies that do business with Sudan. During a committee hearing in February, a Palin administration representative, Deputy Revenue Commissioner Brian Andrews, testified against the legislation on the grounds that it would do nothing to help "the afflicted in Sudan" and would add to the fund's administrative costs.

While acknowledging that the legislation was "well intended" and that "the desire to make a difference is noble," Andrews warned that "mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination."

A co-sponsor of the legislation, Anchorage Democrat Les Gara, said that Palin apparently had a change of heart on the divestiture issue in March. During a brief hallway conversation, she expressed sympathy for his bill. By that time, however, the bill had effectively died in committee.

The change in the Palin administration's position became official in early April when Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin announced that the administration supported a Senate bill on divestment, SB 227, as "a proactive action against genocide in Darfur," saying, "The situation is an ongoing human tragedy, and Alaska has an opportunity to take a stand against those activities." The Senate bill, like the House Bill, went nowhere, as there was no time to take action on it before the legislature wrapped up its business in early April.

The Pinocchio Test

Sarah Palin is exaggerating her role in leading the Sudan divestiture in Alaska. The legislative record shows that her administration was late in embracing the campaign to sell stock in companies that do business with Sudan, and that it initially opposed the divestiture. The Alaska Permanent Fund still invests in companies blacklisted by the Save Darfur Coalition.

Sarah Palin LIED about the genocide in Darfur to score cheap political points last week.

Smearing Barack Obama is bad enough.

Lying about mass murder is beyond my comprehension.

Unless, of course, you're lying about your involvement in supporting the regime that's doing the killing...

"The world vowed "never again" after the genocide in Rwanda and the atrocities in Srebrenica, Bosnia. Then came Darfur. Over the past four years, at least 200,000 people have been killed, 2.5 million driven from their homes, and mass rape has been used as a weapon in a brutal campaign supported by the Sudanese government. In On Our Watch, FRONTLINE asks why the United Nations and its members once again failed to stop the slaughter." (Frontline 2007)

Trailer:

• Watch it on Youtube (Playlist)
• Please also visit the PBS Frontline - On Our Watch-Website which provides additional Interviews, a Timeline and more.

• >> related Posts

Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig on Sunday said an air ban would be ineffective because the Sudanese armed forces are only using government planes and helicopters to fight bandits and protect humanitarian convoys.

The Darfur conflict has killed 200,000 - 300,000 and driven more than 2.5 million from their homes, say international experts. Khartoum puts the death toll at 10,000.

Opinion

As I have reported in earlier posts the Darfur situation was recognized as genocide by the Busy administration as long ago as 2004. In September 2004 Secretary Powell officially invoked the term “genocide” to describe what was going on there in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and  President Bush (white House Press Release, September 9, 2004).

Despite calling it a genocide the U.S. and the rest of the world have taken no effective action to date. UN forces there have no mandate to engage. They are there to observe and offer humanitarian aid. This is a repeat of Rwanda.

A no fly zone would at least show some action was being taken, but not nearly enough. Enforcement of the International Criminal Court’s prosecution of Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity would also be a step in the right direction.

Incredibly, and despite all the evidence the no fly zone is only a possibility with pathetic arguments being made against it, and apparently THE UN Security Council is under pressure to suspend the International Criminal Court’s prosecution of Bashir according to a report in the Economist, which I reported here last week.

The charges may be dropped because, of the Security Council’s five permanent members, three - China, Russia and the United States—refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court. Coincidentally Russia and China have huge financial interests in Sudan and are actively supporting the regime, and in-directly the genocide. I reported on this before - China is Fueling the War in Darfur.

the 53-member African Union (AU) and the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have also demanded that the Security Council suspend proceedings against Mr Bashir. As the author of the Economist article rightly points out several members of the AU abd OIC, “no doubt fearing that it could be their turn next”, to face the International Criminal Courts.

It is also interesting that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in her electioneering today accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists". She could equally suggest that, by their unwillingness to act to stop what they themselves describe as genocide, the republican party, the President, and the United states are also guilty of "palling around with terrorists."

Vbs.tv, "television" channel of Vice magazine, has a feature about the Sudan/Darfur conflict.

Before I went to Sudan, I didn’t know much about the conflict in Darfur beyond everyone saying, “It’s the worst genocide of our time,” and watching footage on CNN of the Janjaweed militia wiping out whole villages. Really, we only decided to go there because one of our favorite photographers in the UK, Jamie-James Medina, had been chatting with an old friend of his who is now a UN press officer in Khartoum. She offered to pull some strings and get us visas and organize flights around the country, so we said, “Fuck it,” and got on a plane. (Shane Smith - Co-founder of VICE magazine)

Links:

• watch it on VBS.tv
• Watch it on Youtube (Playlist)
• VICE PICTURES - Inside Sudan

• related Posts

Quite by chance I had the fortune of meeting British MP Lord Nazir Baron Ahmed of Rotherham in the County of South Yorkshire at the Friday prayer. He was passing through Boston on his way to New York where he planned to speak to Aafia Siddiqui's lawyer in order to put some pressure on the US authorities to allow the sister to be hospitalized and treated for her gunshot wound as well as severe post-traumatic stress. In a phone conversation the next day, the Rt. Hon. the Lord Ahmed shared with me how he came to know about her tragic fate.

This summer, probably during their fact-finding mission to Darfur reported earlier in my blog, the famed reporter Yvonne Ridley approached Baron Ahmed to ask if he could find out anything about the legendary mystery of the "Grey Lady of Bagram."

When Pakistani detainee Moazzem Begg was released without charge, he reported to the media that he still felt haunted by a woman's sobbing cries and hysterical screams coming from Cell #650 at the US-run torture den in Afghanistan. Saudis liberated from Bagram during the daring Taliban prison break-out also reported that they had seen her.

Baron Ahmed tried to investigate whether the British intelligence service was involved in the interrogation of this woman, whether they were of abuse, and whether this lady was Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, the MIT and Brandeis-educated neuroscientist that mysteriously disappeared in Pakistan in March 2003 along with her 6 month old baby, and children aged 5 and 6?

Baron Ahmed addressed a similar interrogatory letter to the US ambassador in the UK, who passed it along to the British embassy in Kabul.

Pakistani politician Imran Khan held a press conference in Islamabad in order to rally public support for the "Grey Lady of Bagram." The Pakistani government denied any knowledge of Prisoner 650 or Aafia. The UK denied having custody of her and said she was in the hands of the US. The US claimed that Prisoner 650 was "a different woman," who had been released in 2005 to her (unnamed) country of origin.

Yet that same day this past July, when Kabul received the letter from Baron Ahmed, Aafia Siddiqui was reportedly to have been arrested while she was wandering around in Afghanistan, "as if she were on bloody holiday" in the words of the Baron, who rejects the dubious claim that she was carrying chemical, biological and radioactive weapons information as well as jars of chemicals in her purse. Siddiqui has no military expertise. Her primary focus of study was children's cognitive development.

Human Rights Watch attorney, Carol Mariner states: "US federal prosecutors allege that the day after her arrest, while she was still in Afghan custody, she grabbed a gun from the floor and fired it at a team of US soldiers and federal intelligence agents visiting the Afghan police compound where she was being held.

Baron Ahmed however informed me that according to witnesses the US had told the Afghan authorities to hand Siddiqui over and the Afghan police were refusing. As they were negotiating, Siddiqui began to walk towards the US soldiers as she complained that the Afghan police were abusing her. One of the American soldiers panicked and shot the petite, unarmed woman in the stomach.

According to a cageprisoners.com report by Abu Sabaya, Siddiqui has not received adequate medical treatment for her bullet wound except for a botched bullet-removal surgery under US custody, in which one of her kidneys and part of her intestine were removed with the result that she is unable to properly digest food and that her entire torso is covered with layers of scar tissue. She was brought, emaciated and in terrible condition, to trial in New York in a wheelchair in September 2008. Not only was she in severe pain then, but her condition has since worsened significantly. Her trial was then postponed indefinitely a couple weeks ago under the excuse that she had refused the body cavity strip search required for her to leave her cell.

After much international media outcry, Aafia's American-born son was located in an Afghan prison and was handed over to his relatives in Pakistan while Siddiqui was transferred to a Federal Prison in New York. No one knows what happened to her young daughter or her baby. There is a report that one of them was killed.

Aafia's lawyers believe that she has spent the last five years as a secret captive of Pakistani or American authorities. According to Joanne Mariner, who is an attorney with Human Rights Watch in New York, the Pakistani papers reported that she had been "picked up in Karachi by an intelligence agency" and handed over to US authorities in 2003.

Before her abduction on March 18, 2003, the FBI had issued an alert requesting information about her. Siddiqui was then living in Pakistan after the completion of her studies in the US.

During her years as an undergraduate and graduate student, she was very active in the Muslim Students' Association and in helping to manage a religious information (daw'ah) table in the MIT student center, in teaching Quran to recent converts to Islam, and in collecting winter boots to send to Bosnia.

A 2004 article from Boston Magazine quotes her: "Imagine our humble, but sincere daw'ah effort turning into a major daw'ah movement in this country! Just imagine it! And us, reaping the reward of everyone who accepts Islam through this movement, through years to come. Think and plan big. May Allah give this strength and sincerity to us so that our humble effort continue, and expands until America becomes a Muslim land."

It is very possible that Boston neocons pinpointed this pious and idealistic student for neutralization. During the conflict over the Roxbury Mosque several Boston Jewish organizations conspired in deliberate character assassination of the founders of the Roxbury Mosque as "terror supporters" in an effort that included a bogus legal and media campaign in which the NE Israeli Consulate participated with the aim of causing a scandal in the hope that the multi-million dollar mosque building project would either be shut down or collapse.

In the course of the conflict, the David Project as well as other organizations and individuals collaborated with Steve Emerson and Rita Katz, two professional anti-Islam propagandists with links to the neocon establishment, to develop a list of incriminating sounding accusations and suspicious links that would be used to defame Muslim leaders in the Boston and national media. Although the accusations were baseless, the mysteriously well-funded organizations created a hostile and malicious media campaign with innuendo-laden press releases by the David Project front group, "Citizens for Peace and Tolerance."

It is more than highly probable that one of these shadowy Zionist advocacy groups conspired against Siddiqui, used the same techniques developed during the Roxbury Mosque controversy and passed the same sort of faked evidence to the FBI. Had she been in the US, probably after a brief investigation, the FBI would have found nothing and left her alone, but because Pakistan was under heavy pressure to produce terrorists for the US to imprison, and because US Constitutional protections do not apply in Pakistan, the young woman was abducted while she was on the way to the train station.

Although all the evidence the FBI have on her and her husband seem to be some debit card donations to Islamic charities, the US government later alleged that Siddiqui was linked to al Qaeda. Both Siddiqui and her husband, Ali 'Abd al-'Aziz Ali (also known as Ammar al-Baluchi), disappeared from Karachi around March 28, 2003.

Siddiqui's husband was finally located in September 2006 in Guantanamo, where he had been transferred from CIA custody. He is currently on trial for allegedly "sending money to suicide squads" according to the Miami Herald. Prosecutors are charging him, along with his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whom they refer to as "Al-Qaeda Kingpin," and "9/11 Mastermind," of conspiring with Osama bin Laden to plan and to finance the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

This is a very curious charge, given that the FBI has publicly admitted that they have no evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 according to information which is freely available on the FBI website.

The men were found to have been secretly held for three years by the CIA after having been arrested by Pakistani intelligence who rounded up dozens of "suspects" in Karachi, including people later determined to be tourists in order to collect the head bounty fee for America's "War on Terror."

Baluchi, a computer engineer, who speaks near-perfect English, has refused to accept legal representation and has chosen to represent himself in the military tribunal.

The Miami Herald quoted him as saying, ''I am in the wrong court. I am not a criminal. My case is political. Even though the government tortured me free of charge for all these years, I cannot accept lawyers under these circumstances. ''

The ACLU, whose lawyers were poised to argue on his behalf, blamed Pentagon regulations for thwarting any possibility of the development of a trust relationship with the potential client, who had been tortured for five years and had unsurprisingly come to mistrust all Americans.

Not only did Khalid Shayk Muhammad confess to planning 9/11 "from A to Z" while he was being waterboarded, also admitted to a long list of other terrorist acts, including the London train bombing of 2005, which he could not have possibly committed since he was in Guantanamo at the time of its occurrence, but he also rejected his American lawyer on religious grounds because he believes that the US Constitution "allows for same sexual marriage."

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other organizations included Siddiqui in a 2007 list of disappeared persons that were believed to have been in CIA custody.

Baron Ahmed asked the US authorities for permission to see her and the US Justice Department said they would facilitate a visit. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has repeatedly tried to obstruct his access. Ahmed has since decided it would not be useful for him to visit Siddiqui anyway as she has reportedly gone mad. She is locked in solitary confinement in New York's Metropolitan Detention Center and can only speak to her lawyer through the slot for her meal tray. She is in tremendous physical agony and speaks only of waiting for God to take her and her children. She apparently believes her young children are in there with her but this belief is believed to be the tragic maternal hallucinations of an emotionally destroyed human being, whose children had been stolen out of her arms by armed soldiers. According to one media report, she refused her dinner asked the prison guard to give the food to her son instead of her.

Siddiqui's lawyer feels that under the present circumstances, she is not fit to stand trial, and she needs to be moved immediately to a prison hospital for treatment of her gunshot wound as well as to get some psychological help.

Without making any attempt to explain themselves the Federal authorities are obstructing her access to medical treatment. The US government is pressuring the judge and demanding that she remain alone in her cell. The American ambassador N.W. Peterson absurdly objected to Siddiqui receiving medical treatment on grounds that she is a "security threat."

It is fairly clear to the author that the US wants her to die in order to prevent her from testifying about her prison experience, or else in order to inflame the Pakistani public into rioting against the US.

Pakistan is passionately demanding Aafia Siddiqui's re-patriation. She has huge public support.

Benazir Bhutto's widower Asif Ali Zardari, the recently elected President of Pakistan, said in a speech, "Aafia Siddiqui is my sister."

Baron Ahmed will continue to work with the US Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other intelligence agencies, Siddiqui's lawyers and the Prosecution to help facilitate family and doctor visits for her, and to bring about Siddiqui's return to Pakistan.

Aafia's brother in Texas has recently been offered access to see her.

karinfriedemann.blogspot.com

Information provided by Ijaz Syed

ABC News: Record Refutes Palins Sudan Claim.

LIE:

"When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn’t passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world.”

TRUTH:

 "The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner...

Y'know, it's really really low when you lie about fighting genocide.  It's bad enough to do nothing.  But only a complete and total sleazebag would lie that she did something.  Sarah Palin is a pathological liar without a shred of decency.