Search Result in All

Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani talks about his latest book on the Darfur Conflict and the shady Save Darfur movement. His book is called SAVIORS AND SURVIVORS. The talk was at UNCA. In this clip Mamdani discusses two erroneous assumptions about the Darfur conflict. 1. The death estimates and the contradictory reports. 2. The causes. What did they die from?

Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani talks about his latest book on the Darfur Conflict and the shady Save Darfur movement. His book is called SAVIORS AND SURVIVORS. The talk was at UNCA. In this clip Mamdani argues that 20 to 30 percent died from direct violence. Others died because of independent causes like desertification and drought which actually preceded the conflict. The cause of violence was the civil war in Darfur and the insurgency and counter-insurgency - all with separate origins and causes. The third consideration was the Cold War which involved America France Israel on one side and on the other Libya and Soviet Union. Each side armed different sides in the civil war in Chad. In Darfur the Chad opposition organized itself and launched assaults on Chad.

Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani talks about his latest book on the Darfur Conflict and the shady Save Darfur movement. His book is called SAVIORS AND SURVIVORS. The talk was at UNCA. Continuing from the previous clips where Mamdani has argued that there were internal and external causes of violence. The fourth erroneous assumption according to him in understanding the conflict is that the level of violence was steady. That may not have been the case. The fifth problem or erroneous assumption is that the Save Darfur movement has removed the history from this conflict. It feeds masses with the death estimates and details of the atrocities but not the internal and external politics contexts. The whole conflict is turned into a simplistic morality tale where one side is the OPPRESSOR and the other OPPRESSED. The media also contributed to this effect. Mamdani argues that we can learn from the experiences of South Africa and Mozambique where there were no winners and no losers in the end and a ceasefire and political justice of sorts were achieved.

Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani talks about his latest book on the Darfur Conflict and the shady Save Darfur movement. His book is called SAVIORS AND SURVIVORS. The talk was at UNCA. In this clip Mamdani discusses how the International Criminal Court-s intervention has exacerbated the situation because of ICC-s focus on criminal justice. He sheds light on the politics of ICC in the international arena that benefits certain powers. He re-emphasizes how the de-politicization of the conflict has been used to mobilized the masses.

Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani talks about his latest book on the Darfur Conflict and the shady Save Darfur movement. His book is called SAVIORS AND SURVIVORS. The talk was at UNCA. Responding to Q and A Mamdani shares his experience from the ground and touches upon the possibilities of solution continuing the discussion in the previous clips.

Q and A after Mahmood Mamdani-s talk at the School of Oriental and African Studies - SOAS - in UK. June 3 2009. His latest book is Saviors and Survivors - Darfur Politics and the War on Terror. Courtesy pulsemedia.org

NATO-supported politicians in Syria are isolated since the national election. Meanwhile the UN has about-turned to announce the presence of al-Qaeda inside Syria. Press TV has interviewed Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and historian from Washington about the admission by UN and US heads that al-Qaeda is attempting to destabilize Syria from inside the country after so long refusing to admit its presence and surmises on why the announcement would be made at this point in time. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview. Press TV: How surprising is it to you to see UN Chief Ban Ki Moon expressing concern about the situation in Syria? And what does Ban Ki Moon's breaking of his own silence mean to the UN Security Council? Tarpley: In the case of Ban Ki Moon we must always suspect ulterior motives i.e. an evil intent. And in these circles that Ban Ki Moon speaks for, that is to say NATO and imperialism in general, the new line is no longer to deny the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria, but to begin to cite al-Qaeda as yet another reason why an invasion and bombing will be necessary that is to say, if this terrible situation goes on any longer that al-Qaeda might get the upper hand. We heard Hilry Clinton in a rare moment of candor in the past week also conceding the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria. However, we need to point out that the reason al-Qaeda is there is because these NATO heads of government, heads of state and other officials have brought al-Qaeda into the picture. Al-Qaeda is what it always was, the CIA Arab Legion and in particular some of the most experienced al-Qaeda operatives were brought from Tripoli in Libya all the way to southern Turkey to Iskandaron and other places in kind of an airlift by NATO some months ago. So much so that when Ambassador Jafari of Syria showed his CD at the UN - he said that the Syrian government has these confessions of foreign fighters including Turkish and Libyan foreign fighters and I think we can assume that's the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is therefore al-Qaeda. So, Ban Ki Moon is just as morally bankrupt as he always was, it's just that he has had to change his mode of attack. The entire situation of this resistance is of course desperate. As a result of the Syrian election a couple of weeks ago when more than half of the possible voters voted under the worst possible conditions, the Syrian National Council is breaking apart and the leader (Berhan) Ghalioun has now resigned, he's out. So, there is no coherent opposition so now they're less worried about trying to pretend that there's a political opposition and more with let's get on with the invasion. Press TV: Just imagine if those armed gangs who claim to be the saviors of the Syrian people, yet kill civilians and use the human population as a human shield according to reports - just imagine if they came to power, I mean, what kind of a government would we see? Isn't it paradoxical? Tarpley: This is of course the essence of the imperialist policy, it is partition, mini-states, micro-states and failed states. It's more or less what you see in Libya. We notice that the Western media have been much less interested in showing us the wonders of democracy, the singing tomorrows of the National Transitional Council in Libya because that country of course is tragically breaking up and you've got terrorist gangs and the beginnings of a separation of different parts of the country. This is what they would like to bring to Syria using NATO bombing, invasion… and the shock troops i.e. the people NATO has on the ground at the moment are these al-Qaeda types supplemented of course by mercenaries from France, turkey and other countries. The specific emphasis we have right now though is to try to cut a corridor - and it won't be a humanitarian corridor, it will be a terror corridor - starting with Tripoli to northern Lebanon and this Kleyate airport, which NATO would like to seize. That's why we've had an increase in terrorist assassinations in that area; we've had the kidnapping of the pilgrims… This is a thrust to try to get a corridor from the Mediterranean into Syria through Tripoli and the Kleyate airport. Press TV: What lies ahead for Syria in the long term especially in terms of the Assad government? How long can the Assad government resist and maintain its power? Tarpley: I think the Assad government politically is better off in the last two weeks than it was before because they've successfully carried out a national election, a multi-party election; the Constitution has been changed so that the Baath Party no longer has a monopoly of power. I think anybody who is sincerely interested in democratic reforms has participated in that election; some of them did get elected. The people who have been boycotting it have isolated themselves - they're now exposed as either al-Qaeda or fellow travelers with al-Qaeda. So it seems to me the NATO political situation has gotten desperate and the only way out of that is to try to escalate the military side. But there once again they risk the collision with Russia, China and others who are not going to allow them to do that at least under the UN cover. One of the places to look for a possible resolution for this is the Bilderberg-er meeting here in Washington SC at the end of next week, would typically be a place where a solution to that dilemma might emerge and therefore bears very, very careful watching.