Eric Reeves: An Apologist for Murder (by David Hoile)

Sorry to say, I agree with most of what David Hoile writes in an opinion piece at Media Monitors Network (MMN) March 20, 2006 and am glad someone has spoken up against Eric Reeves' dangerously naive warmongering rants. It seems clear (to me anyway) Eric Reeves is biased and on the side of the Sudanese rebels. His relentless pushing for military intervention (an act of war) in Darfur can only be because it furthers the rebels cause and gives them what they want. Invading Sudan would cause aid workers to be dismissed from the country and disasterously affect the lives of millions of defenceless women and children dependent on aid. The rebels have been against Africa Union troops from the start and have used Western media at every opportunity to denigrate the efforts and capability of AU troops. Khartoum might be against international troops in Darfur because it would give the rebels what they've been pushing for all along. It makes one wonder who is funding the rebels and why. Surely if they were interested in peace, and really cared about the women and children of Sudan, an agreement would have been reached by now. Excerpt:

"Reeves' white middle-class naivety about Africa would be fairly amusing in its gaucheness in any other context. Eric Reeves, in his crass selectivity and grotesque distortion of events in Darfur, however, is clearly intent on attempting to get the United States militarily involved in western Sudan on as questionable a series of pretexts as those used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Any such intervention will resulted in another Iraq-type quagmire in another strategic part of the world, and the loss of thousands more American lives together with the lives of the very Africans he claims to care so much about".

Well said Mr Hoile.

Further reading

Mar 16, 2006 Oxfam - AU should call for AMIS mandate that prioritises civilian protection.

Mar 7, 2006 Eric Reeves As Rainy Season Nears, Darfur Faces "Perfect Storm" of Human Destruction.
- - -

What Does Eric Reeves Mean by Calling Top UK Minister Hilary Benn "Unspeakably Cruel and Fatuous" over Darfur Crisis?

The following is a copy of a Sudan Watch entry I drafted last month, I am filing it in this slot today for future reference:

Beware this is a vent. Sokari Ekine at Global Voices says American academic Eric Reeves in cosy Boston believes the presence of a NATO force in Darfur alongside the AU forces would immediately challenge the genocidal actions of the Janjaweed militia and bring security to the region.

I say, Eric Reeves lives in cloud cuckoo land. He is off his rocker if he thinks it is just a matter of NATO finding the will and seeking the authority to magically secure the whole of Sudan. Sudan is the size of Europe! Darfur is the size of France or Texas! Not only that, he now thinks NATO can also magically bring security to another huge African country, Chad but doesn't say how many troops: 80,000, 100,000 or what? And from where?

In his latest rant, What Does President Bush Mean by "NATO stewardship" of Darfur Crisis? Reeves writes:

"US intelligence has already identified the sites at which Khartoum's regular military most frequently and substantially supplies the Janjaweed with weaponry, ammunition, vehicles, and other military gear. These sites could be rapidly destroyed or neutralized."

Oh yeah, sure. And start World War III? When would walk away time be? Who would pay for the billions of dollars it would cost?

Intervention is an act of war. What would be the military objective, to overthrow the regime in Khartoum? And replace it with what? How many years would NATO occupy the Sudan? Would this include Chad? What about Eritrea, Egypt, Ethiopia and Uganda? Who would transport supplies and how? How much would it all cost year on year? If the Americans are not willing to finance it who else should be? And while I'm at it Mr Prof-Know-It-All-Reeves: who is the "world community" you speak of?

Considering American troops will never be deployed to intervene in the Sudan it is hard to know what Reeves keeps banging on about, why and to whom. For someone who has never worked in the real world, he has a lot to say. He learns everything in theory through books and USAID. Put him in charge of a government or army for five minutes and he wouldn't last two minutes.

Eric Reeves ought to be ashamed of his unspeakably cruel and fatuous description of UK Minister Hilary Benn. The UK was the first to donate to Darfur and is one of the top cash donors. The British government, media, charities, churches, military, celebrities, concert fundraisers, Bono and Geldof et al, and Brits in general, have done a huge amount to help Sudanese people in need, more so than most other countries. We want peace for Sudan and, unlike Eric Reeves, are not aiming to start a war.