Eric Reeves says only NATO military action can save Darfur

Further to an earlier entry here at Sudan Watch, note the following excerpt from concluding paragraph of Eric Reeves' latest opinion piece at The New Republic May 27, 2006:

"Never has it been more obvious that only NATO military action can save Darfur. The people of Darfur have been waiting for help for three years. If working through the United Nations is the best the international community has to offer, they will be waiting for a long time to come."

Now it is clear (to me anyway) that Eric Reeves - a penpusher sitting behind a desk in the leafy suburbs of cosy Boston - who has never done a days work in the real world (or would ever be willing to send his children or any other Bostonian to invade the Sudan) is onside with the Sudanese rebels.

This latest piece of his tells me what I have suspected and said here several times before: he wants the West to wage war on the Sudan - a country the size of Europe - for Western forces to invade it militarily in order to overthrow the current regime in Khartoum, giving the Sudanese rebels what they have wanted all along (including those in South Sudan).

The Sudan is really none of Eric Reeves business. He is not an elected member of the US government. I wish a professional writer would publish rebuttals to educate readers as to the dangers of Reeves' rants. He is giving the rebels confidence and feeding them with what they want to hear. He adored John Garang and was awestruck and puffed up to receive a phone call of appreciation from Garang around the time of the CPA signing (there is a blog entry here in the Sudan Watch archives noting Reeves. account of the story).

One can only conclude that Eric Reeves, like all the others who are making a living off the backs of starving Africans, is out to make a name for himself and is probably just another one looking to go down in history with a book to sell. If he does not provide more balanced analysis I shall start getting on his case. The man is a menace, misguided, naive and dangerous. Who am I to say such things? A nobody. But this is my blog, I can say whatever I want, I have nothing better else to do all day and have nothing to sell, no ads or political party to promote, no donations to attract. I take no sides except for that of the millions of defenceless women and children in the Sudan, Chad, northern Uganda, Ethiopia and DR Congo.

Note how Eric Reeves demonises the so-called Janjaweed (and everyone else it seems, except the rebels) by taking a look at the following excerpt from his latest piece and compare it with that of the news reports on North Darfur, listed here below.

Eric Reeves:

"This past week there have been widespread Janjaweed attacks on villages near the town of Kutum in North Darfur, where the Janjaweed are reported to be continuing a massive mobilization. The Gereida area in South Darfur continues to be threatened by the Janjaweed, and late last month Khartoum launched a large military offensive in the area. In West Darfur, international aid workers were attacked by "unidentified men in uniform," likely Janjaweed or Khartoum-allied paramilitary forces. Doctors Without Borders reports large numbers of civilians injured in recent military clashes between rebels and Khartoum's forces near Labado, also in South Darfur.

The rebel groups are far from innocent in all this: In North Darfur, the two main factions of the Sudan Liberation Army--only one of which has signed the peace agreement--are locked in extremely fierce fighting."

'Extremely fierce fighting' eh? If you want to know what he means by that, read the following list of reports on what the rebels were up to in North Darfur. Unfortunately, I am unable to spend time right now on searching out a slew of news reports here in Sudan Watch archives that point out how the rebels taunt and provoke the so-called Janjaweeed into attacking so they can make a meal of it in the press and get people like Eric Reeves spreading the word to US politicians and his chums at USAID and all the others he fancies rubbing shoulders with. Eric Reeves, despite his claims of being independent comes across as heavily political with aims to influence US foreign policy. Most undemocratic. He's more dangerous than George Galloway. Nobody elected Eric Reeves - he's unaccountable.

Apr 28 2006 UN threatens to suspend aid in Darfur blaming rebels and SLA attacks in North Darfur

May 3 2006 Sudan's SLA rebel attacks on aid workers in North Darfur breaks international humanitarian law

May 18 2006 After peace, Darfur's rebel forces turn on each other and fight for Tawilla, North Darfur making it one of the most insecure regions of Darfur

May 22 2006 AU concerned about janjaweed "massing" near Kutum, North Darfur

May 22 2006 Fears Janjaweed will turn on Sudanese government if they try to take their arms by force

May 23 2006 Rebels' rivalry subverts hope for Darfur peace