Darfur, Oil, Money

This is from the LA Times today:

In Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have perished in what the United States calls a genocide, the killing has been supported by profits from companies helping the government of Sudan tap its vast reservoirs of oil, according to services that research corporate conduct for investors. The firms include China's Sinopec Corp., Malaysia's Petronas, and Schlumberger, based in the Netherlands Antilles — whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Gates Foundation's most significant connection to the Sudanese oil industry, however, is through Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Bill Gates is a Berkshire director, and Berkshire's chairman, Warren E. Buffett, is a trustee of the Gates Foundation. Berkshire holds a $3.3-billion stake in PetroChina Co., a subsidiary of the China National Petroleum Corp., or CNPC, the biggest player in Sudanese oil.

Buffett has pledged $31 billion worth of Berkshire stock to the Gates Foundation in annual installments, beginning last year with $1.6 billion. In 2009 and afterward, the foundation expects Berkshire's wealth to fund about half of its charitable awards — which have included more than $34 million for emergency refugee and health services in Sudan, plus a share of at least $167 million more in regional health grants.

But some of Berkshire's wealth comes from PetroChina, whose parent company supplies a large part of the money that underwrites Sudan's military — as well as the janjaweed, according to the United States and the United Nations. The infusion of Berkshire stock places the Gates Foundation in conflict with its own efforts to help victims of the Sudanese civil war.

It's hard to keep your hands clean in this world. But that's the way things go in the aid business. And it's not just oil companies. Pharmaceutical companies, grain processors and others fuck over Africa every day but then invest in aid projects. Industry always hedges its bets and supports both sides in a conflict. Support Hitler, support the Janjaweed but make a show of helping the victims.

Security Dilemmas: Recasting The Darfur Debate

Interesting post about Darfur on Security Dilemmas blog:

"There are lots of ways that protecting innocent people being slaughtered by their government is in the US interest. There are lots of ways that stabilizing a volatile region is as well. President Bush in particular has shown himself to be open to this kind of argument; unfortunately, much of its force has been discredited by the debacle in Iraq."

I'm not sure I agree that Bush has shown himself to be open to this argument; rather he's open to using this argument when it suits his larger purposes. Is there any chance that he'll intervene in Darfur at the end of his lame-duck administration just as his father did in Somalia?

Little Hope in Darfur

The New Republic, Draws the inevitable conclusion about Darfur: (You'll have to pay to read the whole article or at least try out a free subscription, I think)

We wish we could identify some hopeful sign for Darfur on the horizon. But we are not naïve: The world has managed to live with the consequences of its inaction for three years now; surely it can do so for many more. Meanwhile, the confidence of those who terrorize and kill will only grow. Recently, NBC News interviewed a 17-year-old girl who was attacked in October 2006. "You are black," a man in a Sudanese uniform had taunted just before raping her. "You have no place here." Then he offered a prediction: "We will push you out of here. This land will remain for us." And you know what? He's probably right.

Why the inaction? Is it possible that it's more valuable for the West to posture about the government in Khartoum than to actually contribute to stopping the genocide? Some answers are below.

Other Sides to Darfur?

Darfur is one of the things that all well-meaning people seem to agree on. A fundamentalist Arab government is waging genocidal war on helpless African, Christian victims. Well, not everyone agrees:

"[Some] see the Darfur conflict as merely the latest campaign to overthrow an Islamist government by any means necessary, where the necessary means, in the case of Darfur, might be described as a conspiracy to wage war on Sudan by using "peacekeeping" or "humanitarianism" as policy instruments in combination with international threats of military action." writes Keith Harmon Snow.