For future reference, here below is a copy of a Reuters report April 29 on Javier Solana's important talks starting today in the US re China and his peace mission to Sudan and DRC.
[Note, the timing of Mr Solana's visit to America and the Sudan. Khartoum's intelligence chief - who, according to Eric Reeves' latest analysis, is one of the 51 suspects - was recently fetched by an executive jet, courtesy of the American Government, for a meeting with the CIA in Washington.
News reports say the intelligence information Khartoum provides has proven most useful and up to date. Regarding the report in the LA Times, logged here April 29, titled "Sudan considered valuable ally in US war on terrorism", one wonders if they on the trail of Bin Laden et al.
My theory, mentioned here several times, is the Bush administration, ever since Colin Powell's visit to Khartoum, has some sort of deal with Khartoum to desist from using the word genocide and quoting top end death tolls.
Watch the press, and notice if you see the Bush administration mentioning the g-word or high death tolls: next day or so news from Khartoum [usually Ismail] will hit the wires giving a clue that Khartoum has blown another gasket under pressure and threaten something or other - usually veiled in terms that go something like: "Sudan will not be able to fulfil its commitments as agreed if ..." - which is probably Khartoum speak for "not willing to provide more intelligence info if you continue using the g-word and referring to 400,000 dead". You have to wonder if Jack Straw was getting at something or someone recently when he mentioned the g-word in relation to Sudan because his speech always sounds measured.
Meanwhile, Robert Zoellick is taking flack from Sudan watchers such as John Prendergast and Eric Reeves [see his latest analysis] - even the Sudanese Embassy in Washington got involved with the politcs of numbers]. Here is the Reuters report:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will start a strategic dialogue with the United States about managing the emergence of China when he visits Washington for talks next week, diplomats said on Friday.
Solana's office announced that he would meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley on May 2-4. He is also to address the House of Representatives International Affairs Committee.
The EU and the United States are at odds over moves to lift a European arms embargo on China, imposed after the crushing of a pro-democracy movement in Tienanmen Square in 1989.
The Europeans have put their plans on hold because of China's recent adoption of an anti-secession law threatening force if Taiwan declares independence, and in response to fierce opposition from Washington and Japan.
Congress has threatened to retaliate by freezing European countries out of military technology sharing if they lift the arms ban, while the Europeans swear they don't plan to sell any more weapons but just want to remove a diplomatic stigma.
EU foreign ministers, meeting in Luxembourg on April 15, said it was up to Beijing now to make gestures on easing tension with Taiwan and improving human rights, notably by releasing political prisoners held since 1989.
EU diplomats said Solana hoped to defuse tension over the issue by starting a broader, regular transatlantic dialogue about how to integrate China's growing economic, political and military power into a cooperative international system.
He is also expected to discuss plans for an international conference to support Iraq's new government, to be hosted jointly by the EU and the US in Brussels in late June -- a symbol of common purpose after bitter transatlantic rifts over the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The diplomats said Solana would also discuss efforts to bring peace to Sudan'stroubled Darfur region and to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he is on a peace mission.
- - -
Re LA Times report above
Jim at Passion of the Present has a post today titled CIA supports genocide in Sudan?
[You have to wonder what the US Government is expected to do if Khartoum contacts them with ultra important information that leads to the whereaobuts of Bin Laden et al or tip offs to avert another 9/11. Surely it is in everyone's interest that the US takes any information it can get. Governments are responsible for working in the best interests of their country. I don't blame the American Government at all. It's interesting the dealings have been made public. Charles Snyder was recently quoted in a recent interview as saying the US gave Sudan top marks for its cooperation on terrorism. Sharing intelligence information need not detract from helping the people of Sudan. It stands to reason no country these days can afford to turn down useful intelligence information.]
- - -
When Interests Trump ideals -- How Do You Choose Between Evils?
Continuing on with above issue, Jim Portland (sadly not a blogger) in the comments at a great post on Darfur by Bradford Plumer, writes this comment:
Phil Carter at Intel Dump has some cogent thoughts about the tradeoff of intelligence from Sudan on terrorism versus opposing genocide.
His summary position:
In the final analysis, I think that the U.S. government has made the right decision there to work with the Khartoum regime to get intelligence about Al Qaeda. But I'm very uncertain about that judgment. We know that genocide itself can breed instability and terrorism, just as failed states like Sudan can. And we also know that many, many more have perished in Darfur than from all of the terror attacks in the last 100 years combined. Should this effort bear no fruit, I will likely question my judgment that this policy is prudent, and lament the lost opportunity to save the victims of genocide in Darfur.
[See comment by Panzerlawyer at Phil's post.]
Tags: Darfur Sudan Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment