http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.darfur16dec16,0,1912284.story
Darfur horrors aren't 'genocide'
By Jonathan Kolieb
December 16, 2007
In an age of 24-hour news channels, short attention spans and a long list of world crises, "genocide" remains headline-grabbing. But the term's application to Darfur is flawed in legal terms and unhelpful in resolving the crisis, and ultimately undermines worldwide efforts to prevent genocide.
Genocide is one of the most disturbingly evocative terms in our vocabulary, and the gravest crime humanity knows. The 1948 Genocide Convention states that two criminal elements - physical and mental - must be proved: There must be actions aimed at or resulting in the deaths of members of a national, religious or ethnic group, and perpetrators of such acts must also have the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group.
The brutal campaign of the Sudanese armed forces and Janjaweed militia does not satisfy these criteria. Their intent is to forcibly put down or drive out of Darfur a secessionist movement and the insurgency that supports it. The government's campaign has used ethnic cleansing and scorched-earth policies that are utterly indefensible. Although the massive numbers of victims may compound the horror of the atrocities there, sheer scale is insufficient to transform massacres into genocide.
The U.S. is the only government in the world that has labeled Darfur genocide, but even its own special envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, pointedly refrains from referring to it as such. The United Nations commission of independent, highly regarded jurists charged with investigating whether any international crimes had occurred unanimously concluded that Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir's regime, while probably guilty of crimes against humanity, "has not pursued a policy of genocide."
By conjuring up visions of a one-sided slaughter of innocents, the term "genocide" also misleads, belying the complexity of the Darfur conflict.
Darfur is a secessionist war, being waged by absolutely barbaric means, between the Sudanese military, along with its militia allies, and Darfurian rebels from various tribes that have constituted themselves in several disparate armed movements.
Several rebel groups have engaged in despicable acts themselves, such as the targeting, rape and murder of international aid workers. Indeed, the rebels took up arms and fired the first shot in an attempt to secure more political rights from the central government - the nub of the conflict. While there is no moral equivalency between the actions of the Janjaweed and the rebels, to say Darfur is a one-sided slaughter of innocents is at best an incomplete picture.
By blurring reality, "genocide" also makes finding a resolution to Darfur more difficult. When the facts of the conflict are buried beneath emotional cries to "stop genocide," we reflexively blame Mr. al-Bashir and his supporters - and place the onus upon them to stop. Indeed, the brutality with which they have conducted themselves warrants international condemnation, and for many years Khartoum blocked efforts at resolving the crisis. But the rebel movements are also impeding the peace process. The failure of the recent peace talks in Sirte, Libya, is largely a result of their boycott by several prominent rebel leaders. Intra-rebel fighting has caused further violence and displacement in Darfur and continues to destabilize surrounding countries. They, too, must be pressured to unify and attend peace talks in good faith.
Bringing peace to Darfur will require much clarity of vision and fortitude on the part of international intermediaries. The onus of resolving the conflict is shared by all parties (including the international community), and the rebels should not be absolved of their responsibilities for peace-making.
The most damning illustration of the proliferation of the word "genocide" has been the growing calls to brand the 2008 Beijing Olympics the "Genocide Olympics" in an effort to highlight China's ties to the Sudanese government.
We are in danger of turning "genocide" into a social catch phrase, allowing a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome to develop. The term was intended to expose the most evil category of crime, and by force of that moral weight necessitate international action. Through its overuse and politicization, we risk wearing out the utility of the term and undermining the response to a future genocide.
Jonathan Kolieb is an international lawyer and research associate at the Century Foundation. His e-mail is kolieb@tcf.org.
Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Black Agenda Report: "Save Darfur" is a scam
*NOTE* - I don't categorically agree with the entire contents of this article, in particular that journalists were bribed to write misinformation about Darfur and that the sole reason of the rallying cry is due to desired control of economic resources.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=453&Itemid=1
Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa
Africa - US Imperialism in Africa
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
by BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon
The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.
Top Ten Reasons to Suspect "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify US Military Intervention in African
by BAR MAnaging Editor Bruce Dixon
The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.
Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the “Save Darfur” lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness. In the spirit of furthering that examination we here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa.
1. It wouldn't be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war.
Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the US government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".
Slick and misleading propaganda campaigns conducted by public relations professionals in support of U.S. foreign and domestic policy initiatives have become pretty much the rule. The Ketchum PR firm was employed to plant false news stories and bribe journalists and commentators to write glowing stories.
2. It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.
The 1995 US and NATO military intervention in Kosovo was supposedly a "peacekeeping" operation to stop a genocide. The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet. The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders. At just under a thousand acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the US military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and relevant sea lanes. It is also widely believed to be the site of one of the US's secret prison and torture facilities.
3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?
“The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd," according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. "What's happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it's not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources."
More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term "genocide" to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the "Save Darfur" movement. In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed.
Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrcik Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese "genocide" worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.
4. It's all about Sudanese oil.
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet's energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It's all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmeceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world's supply. When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity. But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.
6. It's all about Sudan's strategic location
Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world's easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan water resources of regional significance too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.
7. The backers and founders of the "Save Darfur" movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.
According to a copyrighted Washington Post story this summer,"The “Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country – the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum...
“The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year...
“Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars.”
Though the "Save Darfur" PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manfacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.
8. None of the funds raised by the "Save Darfur Coalition", the flagship of the "Save Darfur Movement" go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.
“None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act.”
9. "Save Darfur" partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur
President Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur. Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.
The PR campaign which depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, who are generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan, is slick, seamless and attractive, and seems to leave no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan's 'Arabs", even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and refusing to talk to that government's negotiators is a sure way to avoid any settlement.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial arms of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis.
"Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camp in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback."
Apparently Blackwater doesn't need to come to the Congo, a well established law-free zone where the profits flow to the right places.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=453&Itemid=1
Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa
Africa - US Imperialism in Africa
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
by BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon
The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.
Top Ten Reasons to Suspect "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify US Military Intervention in African
by BAR MAnaging Editor Bruce Dixon
The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.
Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the “Save Darfur” lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness. In the spirit of furthering that examination we here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa.
1. It wouldn't be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war.
Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the US government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".
Slick and misleading propaganda campaigns conducted by public relations professionals in support of U.S. foreign and domestic policy initiatives have become pretty much the rule. The Ketchum PR firm was employed to plant false news stories and bribe journalists and commentators to write glowing stories.
2. It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.
The 1995 US and NATO military intervention in Kosovo was supposedly a "peacekeeping" operation to stop a genocide. The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet. The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders. At just under a thousand acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the US military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and relevant sea lanes. It is also widely believed to be the site of one of the US's secret prison and torture facilities.
3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?
“The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd," according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. "What's happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it's not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources."
More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term "genocide" to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the "Save Darfur" movement. In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed.
Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrcik Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese "genocide" worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.
4. It's all about Sudanese oil.
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet's energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It's all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmeceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world's supply. When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity. But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.
6. It's all about Sudan's strategic location
Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world's easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan water resources of regional significance too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.
7. The backers and founders of the "Save Darfur" movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.
According to a copyrighted Washington Post story this summer,"The “Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country – the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum...
“The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year...
“Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars.”
Though the "Save Darfur" PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manfacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.
8. None of the funds raised by the "Save Darfur Coalition", the flagship of the "Save Darfur Movement" go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.
“None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act.”
9. "Save Darfur" partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur
President Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur. Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.
The PR campaign which depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, who are generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan, is slick, seamless and attractive, and seems to leave no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan's 'Arabs", even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and refusing to talk to that government's negotiators is a sure way to avoid any settlement.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial arms of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis.
"Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camp in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback."
Apparently Blackwater doesn't need to come to the Congo, a well established law-free zone where the profits flow to the right places.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
French "charity" workers attempted kidnapping was an attempt to convert?
As demonstrators in Chad take to protests regarding the twarted attempt of European aid workers to kidnap Muslim kids, Sudan's president leveled charges that the kidnapping was a plot to convert these African children into Christians to then send them back into Africa to convert Muslims once they became adults.
SEE: http://www.smc.sd/en/artopic.asp?artID=20589&aCK=EA
Although President ElBashir has no solid proof that this was the case, there is a long, disturbing history of evangelical prostelyzing in Africa under the banner of "relief work."
The political conflict in the Central African Republic, Chad and Darfur will not be helped in anyway by prostelyzing Muslims.
Again, this might not have been the case in the Zoa's Ark kidnapping case in Chad; they may have just been old fashion European kidnappers, who were going to exploit African children and turn them into servants in France. However, it is safe to say that if those kids had arrived in France, they would not have been sent to live with fellow African Muslims!
SEE: http://www.smc.sd/en/artopic.asp?artID=20589&aCK=EA
Although President ElBashir has no solid proof that this was the case, there is a long, disturbing history of evangelical prostelyzing in Africa under the banner of "relief work."
The political conflict in the Central African Republic, Chad and Darfur will not be helped in anyway by prostelyzing Muslims.
Again, this might not have been the case in the Zoa's Ark kidnapping case in Chad; they may have just been old fashion European kidnappers, who were going to exploit African children and turn them into servants in France. However, it is safe to say that if those kids had arrived in France, they would not have been sent to live with fellow African Muslims!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
European group accussed of enslaving Chadian and Darfurian children
This is a prime example of why African nations are reluctant to allow European aide workers to have free reign in areas that are war torn or stricken with severe poverty. Usually, the primary concerns are that such groups use relief work as a cover to prostelyze the natives or are spies of foreign governments under the cloak of Samaritanism.
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL31303630._CH_.2400
Chadians protest children case, cite "slave trade"
Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:05am EDT
By Stephanie Hancock
ABECHE, Chad, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Chadians chanting "no to the slave trade, no to child trafficking" protested on Wednesday against a French group accused of trying to illegally fly children from the central African country to Europe.
Several hundred angry locals gathered outside the governor's office in the eastern town of Abeche, where nine French nationals and seven Spaniards were arrested last week as they tried to fly 103 children out of the impoverished state.
"We can't accept this act of barbarity, of vandalism. Whether in the 8th century or the 20th century there shouldn't be these kinds of acts in Africa," shouted one protester.
The detained French are members of a group called Zoe's Ark which said it wanted to place orphans aged 3-10 years from Sudan's war-torn Darfur region with European families.
The scandal has triggered outrage among Chadians, with many on the barren border with Sudan questioning the motives of scores of foreign humanitarian groups that work with refugees who have fled years of conflict in Darfur.
Families of children missing in eastern Chad, itself riven by conflict and sheltering some 230,000 Sudanese refugees from Darfur, arrived at the orphanage where the 103 children are being held in the hope of finding lost relatives.
"I can assure you that the Chadian government ... is aware of your complaints and is putting in place all the necessary judicial measures to investigate this issue," Abeche governor Tourka Ramadan Karo told the crowd.
In a bid to calm anger against former colonial power France, he emphasised the group responsible was acting independently and said the French government was helping with investigations.(MORE)
Friday, October 26, 2007
Walid speaks about misrepresentations of Islam and minorities
Last night's lecture was given at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Cut & paste links to listen:
http://www.twango.com/media/DawudWalid.public/DawudWalid.10030 - Part 1 (Misrepresentations of Muslims and Minorities by media, politicians & social/community leaders)
http://www.twango.com/media/DawudWalid.public/DawudWalid.10031 - Part 2
(Q & A)
Cut & paste links to listen:
http://www.twango.com/media/DawudWalid.public/DawudWalid.10030 - Part 1 (Misrepresentations of Muslims and Minorities by media, politicians & social/community leaders)
http://www.twango.com/media/DawudWalid.public/DawudWalid.10031 - Part 2
(Q & A)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Walid speaks regarding misconceptons about Islam and the Muslim world
Yesterday's lecture was given at Saginaw Valley State University in University Center, Michigan.
Cut & paste to listen:
http://www.twango.com/media/DawudWalid.public/DawudWalid.10018
Cut & paste to listen:
http://www.twango.com/media/DawudWalid.public/DawudWalid.10018
Monday, September 17, 2007
Walid to speak in Saginaw area about Islam
http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1454
Lecture on Islam
Dawud Walid, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Michigan, will be speaking at SVSU on Tuesday, Sept. 18 at 5:30 p.m. in the Malcolm Field Theatre for Performing Arts.
Walid will be answering questions about Islam, such as what is Ramadan, do Muslims worship a different God than Jews and Christians, is the Darfur crisis a genocide of Arab Muslims upon indigenous Black Africans, are Muslim females second class citizens under Islamic Law, is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict a war between Islam against Judaism, as well as several others.
The event is open to the public. Admission is free of charge, and is sponsored by the Muslim Students Association of SVSU.
Lecture on Islam
Dawud Walid, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Michigan, will be speaking at SVSU on Tuesday, Sept. 18 at 5:30 p.m. in the Malcolm Field Theatre for Performing Arts.
Walid will be answering questions about Islam, such as what is Ramadan, do Muslims worship a different God than Jews and Christians, is the Darfur crisis a genocide of Arab Muslims upon indigenous Black Africans, are Muslim females second class citizens under Islamic Law, is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict a war between Islam against Judaism, as well as several others.
The event is open to the public. Admission is free of charge, and is sponsored by the Muslim Students Association of SVSU.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Resources for studying the current crisis and civil conflict in Darfur, Sudan & Chad
Website about understanding Sudan by the University of California, Berkely:
http://www.understandingsudan.org/
Prof. Michael Kevane of Santa Clara University (15 min. video summary):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8710663943449172339&q=darfur&pl=true
"The Crisis in Darfur: Community Building ande Identity Politics" by Prof. John Voll, Georgetown University:
http://www.ispu.us/policy_briefs/articledetailpb-45.html
United Nations' report - "Environmental Degradation Triggering Tensions and Conflict in Sudan:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5621&l=en
5 Truths About Darfur by Emily Wax of the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101752_pf.html
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency review by Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html
http://www.understandingsudan.org/
Prof. Michael Kevane of Santa Clara University (15 min. video summary):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8710663943449172339&q=darfur&pl=true
"The Crisis in Darfur: Community Building ande Identity Politics" by Prof. John Voll, Georgetown University:
http://www.ispu.us/policy_briefs/articledetailpb-45.html
United Nations' report - "Environmental Degradation Triggering Tensions and Conflict in Sudan:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5621&l=en
5 Truths About Darfur by Emily Wax of the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101752_pf.html
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency review by Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Walid scheduled to be on talk radio discussing divestment of Sudan
Monday, 8/20/07, from 11 AM to Noon on WDET 101.9 FM in Detroit will be an hour segment focusing on the campaign to divestment from Sudan due to the horrible humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
Also scheduled to be on the show are MI State Reps Hansen Clarke (D) and Alma Wheeler Smith (D).
You may listen via stream on http://www.wdetfm.org/listenlive/
Also scheduled to be on the show are MI State Reps Hansen Clarke (D) and Alma Wheeler Smith (D).
You may listen via stream on http://www.wdetfm.org/listenlive/
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Save Darfur Coalition embellishing stats?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12dealey.html
An Atrocity That Needs No Exaggeration
By SAM DEALEY
Published: August 12, 2007
Washington
JUST last month, the House of Representatives passed the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act and the United Nations Security Council decided to deploy up to 26,000 peacekeepers to Sudan. Both actions were due in no small way to the work of the Save Darfur Coalition. Through aggressive advertising campaigns, this group has done more than any other to focus world attention on the conflict in the Sudanese region.
But with a ruling Wednesday from Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority, Save Darfur now finds itself in the spotlight. Siding with a business group allied with the Sudanese government in Khartoum, the authority ruled that the high death tolls Save Darfur cites in its advertisements breached standards of truthfulness.(MORE)
An Atrocity That Needs No Exaggeration
By SAM DEALEY
Published: August 12, 2007
Washington
JUST last month, the House of Representatives passed the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act and the United Nations Security Council decided to deploy up to 26,000 peacekeepers to Sudan. Both actions were due in no small way to the work of the Save Darfur Coalition. Through aggressive advertising campaigns, this group has done more than any other to focus world attention on the conflict in the Sudanese region.
But with a ruling Wednesday from Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority, Save Darfur now finds itself in the spotlight. Siding with a business group allied with the Sudanese government in Khartoum, the authority ruled that the high death tolls Save Darfur cites in its advertisements breached standards of truthfulness.(MORE)
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Commentary on the 'White man's burden' in Africa
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/OPINION09/707220314/1110/OPINION
Stop trying to ‘save’ Africa
By Uzodinma Iweala
Special to The Washington Post
07-22-2007
Last fall, shortly after I returned from Nigeria, I was accosted by a perky blond college student whose blue eyes seemed to match the “African” beads around her wrists.
“Save Darfur!” she shouted from behind a table covered with pamphlets urging students to TAKE ACTION NOW! STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!
My aversion to college kids jumping onto fashionable social causes nearly caused me to walk on, but her next shout stopped me.
“Don’t you want to help us save Africa?” she yelled.
It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption. Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.
This is the West’s new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.
Perhaps most interesting is the language used to describe the Africa being saved. For example, the Keep a Child Alive/“I am African” ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted “tribal markings” on their faces above “I AM AFRICAN” in bold letters. Below, smaller print says, “help us stop the dying.”
Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent’s corrupt leaders, warlords, “tribal” conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like “Can Bono Save Africa?” or “Will Brangelina Save Africa?” The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and “civilization.”
There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one’s cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head — because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West’s fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West’s prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.
Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been “granted independence from their colonial masters,” as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned? How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?
Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments — without much international help — did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
Last month the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn’t want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
Uzodinma Iweala is the author of “Beasts of No Nation,” a novel about child soldiers.
Stop trying to ‘save’ Africa
By Uzodinma Iweala
Special to The Washington Post
07-22-2007
Last fall, shortly after I returned from Nigeria, I was accosted by a perky blond college student whose blue eyes seemed to match the “African” beads around her wrists.
“Save Darfur!” she shouted from behind a table covered with pamphlets urging students to TAKE ACTION NOW! STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!
My aversion to college kids jumping onto fashionable social causes nearly caused me to walk on, but her next shout stopped me.
“Don’t you want to help us save Africa?” she yelled.
It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption. Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.
This is the West’s new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.
Perhaps most interesting is the language used to describe the Africa being saved. For example, the Keep a Child Alive/“I am African” ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted “tribal markings” on their faces above “I AM AFRICAN” in bold letters. Below, smaller print says, “help us stop the dying.”
Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent’s corrupt leaders, warlords, “tribal” conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like “Can Bono Save Africa?” or “Will Brangelina Save Africa?” The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and “civilization.”
There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one’s cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head — because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West’s fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West’s prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.
Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been “granted independence from their colonial masters,” as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned? How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?
Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments — without much international help — did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
Last month the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn’t want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
Uzodinma Iweala is the author of “Beasts of No Nation,” a novel about child soldiers.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Walid meets with OIC reps to discuss interfaith dialogue and the Darfur crisis
CAIR-MI MEETS WITH OIC REPRESENTATIVES
(SOUTHFIELD, MI, 6/29/2007) - The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) yesterday met with representatives from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Detroit to exchange information about interfaith dialogue and social justice issues.
The meetings, which were coordinated by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, were held at the Muslim Center in Detroit, Michigan and the Islamic Association of Greater Detroit in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
OIC representatives inquired into the demographics of the Detroit Muslim community, religious programs of local mosques and interfaith activities.
The representatives also discussed the organization's efforts to confront Islamophobia as well as its analysis and intervention in the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan.
"We commend the U.S. State Department's efforts to cultivate better relations between America and the Muslim world through its activities with the OIC," said CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid. "The meeting was not only an educational opportunity for the OIC delegates, but also an opportunity for American Muslim leaders to share their common interests and concerns with OIC representatives."
CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
(SOUTHFIELD, MI, 6/29/2007) - The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) yesterday met with representatives from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Detroit to exchange information about interfaith dialogue and social justice issues.
The meetings, which were coordinated by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, were held at the Muslim Center in Detroit, Michigan and the Islamic Association of Greater Detroit in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
OIC representatives inquired into the demographics of the Detroit Muslim community, religious programs of local mosques and interfaith activities.
The representatives also discussed the organization's efforts to confront Islamophobia as well as its analysis and intervention in the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan.
"We commend the U.S. State Department's efforts to cultivate better relations between America and the Muslim world through its activities with the OIC," said CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid. "The meeting was not only an educational opportunity for the OIC delegates, but also an opportunity for American Muslim leaders to share their common interests and concerns with OIC representatives."
CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
UN says Darfur conflict triggered by environmental degradation, not ethnicity
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=512&ArticleID=5621&l=en
Environmental Degradation Triggering Tensions and Conflict in Sudan
Investments in Management and Rehabilitation of Natural Resources Central to Conflict Resolution and Peace Building in Sudan Says UN Environment Programme
Geneva/Nairobi, 22 June 2007 - Sudan is unlikely to see a lasting peace unless widespread and rapidly accelerating environmental degradation is urgently addressed.
A new assessment of the country, including the troubled region of Darfur, indicates that among the root causes of decades of social strife and conflict are the rapidly eroding environmental services in several key parts of the country.
Investment in environmental management, financed by the international community and from the country's emerging boom in oil and gas exports, will be a vital part of the peace building effort, says the report.
The most serious concerns are land degradation, desertification and the spread of deserts southwards by an average of 100km over the past four decades.
These are linked with factors including overgrazing of fragile soils by a livestock population that has exploded from close to 27 million animals to around 135 million now.
Many sensitive areas are also experiencing a "deforestation crisis" which has led to a loss of almost 12 per cent of Sudan's forest cover in just 15 years. Indeed, some areas may undergo a total loss of forest cover within the next decade.
Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence of long-term regional climate change in several parts of the country. This is witnessed by a very irregular but marked decline in rainfall, for which the clearest indications are found in Kordofan and Darfur states.
In Northern Darfur for example precipitation has fallen by a third in the past 80 years says the report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch.
The scale of climate change as recorded in Northern Darfur is almost unprecedented, and its impacts are closely linked to conflict in the region, as desertification has added significantly to the stress on traditional agricultural and pastoral livelihoods.
In addition, "forecast climate change is expected to further reduce food production due to declining rainfall and increased variability, particularly in the Sahel belt. A drop in crop yields of up to 70 per cent is forecast for the most vulnerable areas," says the Sudan Post-Conflict Assessment.
Video in which oil was also mentioned as a source of conflict.
SEE: http://www.unep.org/sudan/VNR/SudanPost-ConflictReport.wmv
Environmental Degradation Triggering Tensions and Conflict in Sudan
Investments in Management and Rehabilitation of Natural Resources Central to Conflict Resolution and Peace Building in Sudan Says UN Environment Programme
Geneva/Nairobi, 22 June 2007 - Sudan is unlikely to see a lasting peace unless widespread and rapidly accelerating environmental degradation is urgently addressed.
A new assessment of the country, including the troubled region of Darfur, indicates that among the root causes of decades of social strife and conflict are the rapidly eroding environmental services in several key parts of the country.
Investment in environmental management, financed by the international community and from the country's emerging boom in oil and gas exports, will be a vital part of the peace building effort, says the report.
The most serious concerns are land degradation, desertification and the spread of deserts southwards by an average of 100km over the past four decades.
These are linked with factors including overgrazing of fragile soils by a livestock population that has exploded from close to 27 million animals to around 135 million now.
Many sensitive areas are also experiencing a "deforestation crisis" which has led to a loss of almost 12 per cent of Sudan's forest cover in just 15 years. Indeed, some areas may undergo a total loss of forest cover within the next decade.
Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence of long-term regional climate change in several parts of the country. This is witnessed by a very irregular but marked decline in rainfall, for which the clearest indications are found in Kordofan and Darfur states.
In Northern Darfur for example precipitation has fallen by a third in the past 80 years says the report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch.
The scale of climate change as recorded in Northern Darfur is almost unprecedented, and its impacts are closely linked to conflict in the region, as desertification has added significantly to the stress on traditional agricultural and pastoral livelihoods.
In addition, "forecast climate change is expected to further reduce food production due to declining rainfall and increased variability, particularly in the Sahel belt. A drop in crop yields of up to 70 per cent is forecast for the most vulnerable areas," says the Sudan Post-Conflict Assessment.
Video in which oil was also mentioned as a source of conflict.
SEE: http://www.unep.org/sudan/VNR/SudanPost-ConflictReport.wmv
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Rwandan troops most respected in Darfur - say that Darfur is not a genocide
http://allafrica.com/stories/200702050250.html
Rwanda: Rwandan Troops Most Respected in Darfur- Envoy
The New Times (Kigali)
George Kagame
Kigali
Recently President Kagame invited all foreign heads of missions and ambassadors for an end of year get together meeting. The New Times' George Kagame managed to have an exclusive interview with Hassan Ibrahim Gadkarim the Sudanese ambassador to Rwanda, the relationship between Rwanda and Sudan, the conduct of Rwandan peace keepers in Darfur being the most prominent issues that were discussed.
TNT: What is your mission here in Rwanda?
Hassan: My mission is to act as a bridge between Rwanda and Sudan, in all sectors where the leaders and peoples can interact for mutual benefit. Ambassadors are conduits of communication between nations, individuals and sectors. Left to themselves they cannot do anything.
What projects are you coordinating between Rwanda and Sudan?
I'm trying to connect technical cooperation in irrigation from Sudan to Rwanda, but am also trying to link the health, agricultural and educational sectors between the two countries.
What lessons have you learnt from Rwanda's recovery to help develop the relations between the Arab dominated North and Christian dominated South Sudan?
The Government of Sudan reached a comprehensive peace settlement with Southern Sudan two years ago, so we learn from the Rwandan experience after 1994, we want to learn lessons from Rwanda and apply to the Sudanese case. Also we are very happy about the presence of Rwandese peace keeping troops in Darfur and the conduct they are exhibiting. As Africans, Rwanda and Sudan share a common experience and a vision for a great future.
Do you target specific projects between Rwanda and Sudan?
Agriculture and irrigation are my biggest concern.
I will establish contact between several sectors in health and education from Sudan and Rwanda.
Then the technocrats will see more avenues for practical work. Sudan has sufficient experience in managing a national budget without foreign supplement.
I believe we can share that knowledge with Rwanda as the country intensifies its fight against poverty.
On 9th Jan, the Comprehensive Peace Treaty between the Sudanese government in Khartoum and the Southern government in Juba was signed. How is the progress so far?
The implementation of the CPT (Comprehensive Peace Treaty) is going on very well, especially in the South. Of course there are problems, but you can understand the progress only if you look at certain indicators, the SPLM (Sudanese People's Liberation Movement) is a liberation movement from the jungle and now it came from the jungle directly into government without being transformed in a political movement or a party.
The government machinery system in the South was starting from scratch, there was no ministry, no institution, no civil service, no transport or sewage system, no electricity or water service. But now if you go to Juba, at least there's some form of government there, there's a parliament and accountability, an army transformed from guerrillas and jungle warriors to an established army that undergoes training. Also in place are budgetary mechanisms. The most important thing is that there's no getting back to war.
What is the situation in Darfur? Is it Genocide or not?
Concerning Darfur, I'm not only speaking as ambassador but I also come from there, so I understand the issue clearly. The problem in Darfur is not religious, because the people in Darfur are mostly Muslims, it is not an ethnic war between black or Arabs, it is a problem of imbalanced development.
The government in Khartoum has not developed the region at the same level as other regions, and this was the same problem with the Southern Sudan provinces. Some people have given it a different interpretation as a war between Arabs and blacks. This is not true; it is an issue of development being shared out differently.(MORE)
Rwanda: Rwandan Troops Most Respected in Darfur- Envoy
The New Times (Kigali)
George Kagame
Kigali
Recently President Kagame invited all foreign heads of missions and ambassadors for an end of year get together meeting. The New Times' George Kagame managed to have an exclusive interview with Hassan Ibrahim Gadkarim the Sudanese ambassador to Rwanda, the relationship between Rwanda and Sudan, the conduct of Rwandan peace keepers in Darfur being the most prominent issues that were discussed.
TNT: What is your mission here in Rwanda?
Hassan: My mission is to act as a bridge between Rwanda and Sudan, in all sectors where the leaders and peoples can interact for mutual benefit. Ambassadors are conduits of communication between nations, individuals and sectors. Left to themselves they cannot do anything.
What projects are you coordinating between Rwanda and Sudan?
I'm trying to connect technical cooperation in irrigation from Sudan to Rwanda, but am also trying to link the health, agricultural and educational sectors between the two countries.
What lessons have you learnt from Rwanda's recovery to help develop the relations between the Arab dominated North and Christian dominated South Sudan?
The Government of Sudan reached a comprehensive peace settlement with Southern Sudan two years ago, so we learn from the Rwandan experience after 1994, we want to learn lessons from Rwanda and apply to the Sudanese case. Also we are very happy about the presence of Rwandese peace keeping troops in Darfur and the conduct they are exhibiting. As Africans, Rwanda and Sudan share a common experience and a vision for a great future.
Do you target specific projects between Rwanda and Sudan?
Agriculture and irrigation are my biggest concern.
I will establish contact between several sectors in health and education from Sudan and Rwanda.
Then the technocrats will see more avenues for practical work. Sudan has sufficient experience in managing a national budget without foreign supplement.
I believe we can share that knowledge with Rwanda as the country intensifies its fight against poverty.
On 9th Jan, the Comprehensive Peace Treaty between the Sudanese government in Khartoum and the Southern government in Juba was signed. How is the progress so far?
The implementation of the CPT (Comprehensive Peace Treaty) is going on very well, especially in the South. Of course there are problems, but you can understand the progress only if you look at certain indicators, the SPLM (Sudanese People's Liberation Movement) is a liberation movement from the jungle and now it came from the jungle directly into government without being transformed in a political movement or a party.
The government machinery system in the South was starting from scratch, there was no ministry, no institution, no civil service, no transport or sewage system, no electricity or water service. But now if you go to Juba, at least there's some form of government there, there's a parliament and accountability, an army transformed from guerrillas and jungle warriors to an established army that undergoes training. Also in place are budgetary mechanisms. The most important thing is that there's no getting back to war.
What is the situation in Darfur? Is it Genocide or not?
Concerning Darfur, I'm not only speaking as ambassador but I also come from there, so I understand the issue clearly. The problem in Darfur is not religious, because the people in Darfur are mostly Muslims, it is not an ethnic war between black or Arabs, it is a problem of imbalanced development.
The government in Khartoum has not developed the region at the same level as other regions, and this was the same problem with the Southern Sudan provinces. Some people have given it a different interpretation as a war between Arabs and blacks. This is not true; it is an issue of development being shared out differently.(MORE)
Friday, October 06, 2006
Sudan: No Genocide in Darfur
http://allafrica.com/stories/200610060177.html
The Namibian (Windhoek)
OPINION
October 6, 2006
Gwynne Dyer
ON one issue, at least, George Bush and George Clooney are in perfect accord: what is happening in Darfur is a genocide, and Something Must Be Done.
But it isn't a genocide, and Nothing Will Be Done.
"What you'll hear is, well, the government of Sudan must invite the United Nations in for us to act," said President George W Bush in mid-September.
"Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a UN resolution saying we're coming in with a UN force in order to save lives."
But for all Bush's tough talk, he wasn't really ready to fight his way into Darfur, so the actual UN resolution says that Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir must approve the force. "Philanthropic imperialism" has a dwindling constituency in Washington.
Actor George Clooney is still up for it, though. If the proposed force of 20 000 UN troops was not in Darfur by the end of September, he told the United Nations Security Council three weeks ago, the scene will be set for "the first genocide of the 21st century."
There would be no point in sending UN troops later: "You will simply need men with shovels and bleached linen and headstones."
As if the UN could actually come up with 20 000 troops to send, and would authorise them to fight their way into Sudan against Bashir's will.
The end-of-September deadline for putting a 20 000-strong force of United Nations troops into Darfur, including large numbers of soldiers drawn from Nato countries, was always a fantasy.
The deadline has passed without any softening of the Sudanese government's total rejection of the plan, and no Western troops are heading for Sudan any time soon.
Instead, the existing force of 7 000 troops from African Union countries that tries to protect the refugee camps, under-equipped and poorly supplied though it is, will stay at least until the end of the year.
This is the best available outcome, and may even save some tens of thousands of lives - especially if the Western countries now give that African Union force the money, fuel, night-flying helicopters and other resources it needs to do the job.
It will continue to be grim in Darfur, but at least the West has avoided a military intervention in Africa that would have made the Somalia debacle in 1992-93 look like a success story.
Darfur, the western region of Sudan, is as big as France, but it has only six million people.
They are all black Africans and all Muslims, but some were Arabised long ago, while other groups, notably the Zaghawa and the Fur, have retained their original African languages and ethnic identities.
(Darfur means "home of the Fur".) Resources are scarce, and the various groups are often in conflict over them.
Nevertheless, Darfur remained relatively quiet during the dreadful war (two million dead in the past twenty years) between the African ethnic groups of southern Sudan, where most people are Christians or animists, and the Muslims of the Arabised north who dominated Sudan's government, army and economy.
It was the peace settlement between north and south in 2003 that triggered the revolt in Darfur.
That peace deal gave the southern rebels a share in the central government, a half-share of the oil revenues now pouring in from wells that are mostly located in "southern" territory, and the right to a referendum on independence from Sudan in six years' time.
So some leaders of the Zaghawa and the Fur decided to emulate the southerners: launch a revolt in Darfur, and try to cut a similar deal with Khartoum in return for ending it.
The regime in Khartoum used the same tactic that it had employed extensively in the war in the south: it armed and paid Arabised groups (the Janjaweed militia) to fight the rebels.
And just as in the south, the bulk of the victims were innocent civilians.
A great many people died, and almost half the population fled to refugee camps that sprang up inside Darfur and across the frontier in Chad.
International aid agencies try to care for the refugees and the African Union sent a 7 000-strong force to protect them, but none of the foreigners took sides in the fighting.
At peace talks in Abuja last May Khartoum offered the rebels posts in the provincial government and a share of oil revenues, and one rebel group, Minni Minawi's Sudan Liberation Army, accepted the deal. However, two rival groups didn't - and even the SLA split, with breakaway factions joining the rejectionists to form the National Redemption Front.
In July fighting resumed, with Minnawi's SLA now cooperating with government troops and the Janjaweed against the remaining rebels. What is needed is not outside military intervention against either side, but a return to the peace table.
Alex de Waal, an advisor to the African Union mediation team at the talks, reckons that another $100 million on the table would probably have persuaded most of the rebel hold-outs to accept the deal. Darfur is not another Rwanda, another Cambodia, another Holocaust in the making, as the "Never Again" slogans of protesters in the West suggest.
It is a cruel war of a kind lamentably common in Africa, and the most useful thing non-Africans can do is to support the African Union's mediators and its troops on the ground.
The Namibian (Windhoek)
OPINION
October 6, 2006
Gwynne Dyer
ON one issue, at least, George Bush and George Clooney are in perfect accord: what is happening in Darfur is a genocide, and Something Must Be Done.
But it isn't a genocide, and Nothing Will Be Done.
"What you'll hear is, well, the government of Sudan must invite the United Nations in for us to act," said President George W Bush in mid-September.
"Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a UN resolution saying we're coming in with a UN force in order to save lives."
But for all Bush's tough talk, he wasn't really ready to fight his way into Darfur, so the actual UN resolution says that Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir must approve the force. "Philanthropic imperialism" has a dwindling constituency in Washington.
Actor George Clooney is still up for it, though. If the proposed force of 20 000 UN troops was not in Darfur by the end of September, he told the United Nations Security Council three weeks ago, the scene will be set for "the first genocide of the 21st century."
There would be no point in sending UN troops later: "You will simply need men with shovels and bleached linen and headstones."
As if the UN could actually come up with 20 000 troops to send, and would authorise them to fight their way into Sudan against Bashir's will.
The end-of-September deadline for putting a 20 000-strong force of United Nations troops into Darfur, including large numbers of soldiers drawn from Nato countries, was always a fantasy.
The deadline has passed without any softening of the Sudanese government's total rejection of the plan, and no Western troops are heading for Sudan any time soon.
Instead, the existing force of 7 000 troops from African Union countries that tries to protect the refugee camps, under-equipped and poorly supplied though it is, will stay at least until the end of the year.
This is the best available outcome, and may even save some tens of thousands of lives - especially if the Western countries now give that African Union force the money, fuel, night-flying helicopters and other resources it needs to do the job.
It will continue to be grim in Darfur, but at least the West has avoided a military intervention in Africa that would have made the Somalia debacle in 1992-93 look like a success story.
Darfur, the western region of Sudan, is as big as France, but it has only six million people.
They are all black Africans and all Muslims, but some were Arabised long ago, while other groups, notably the Zaghawa and the Fur, have retained their original African languages and ethnic identities.
(Darfur means "home of the Fur".) Resources are scarce, and the various groups are often in conflict over them.
Nevertheless, Darfur remained relatively quiet during the dreadful war (two million dead in the past twenty years) between the African ethnic groups of southern Sudan, where most people are Christians or animists, and the Muslims of the Arabised north who dominated Sudan's government, army and economy.
It was the peace settlement between north and south in 2003 that triggered the revolt in Darfur.
That peace deal gave the southern rebels a share in the central government, a half-share of the oil revenues now pouring in from wells that are mostly located in "southern" territory, and the right to a referendum on independence from Sudan in six years' time.
So some leaders of the Zaghawa and the Fur decided to emulate the southerners: launch a revolt in Darfur, and try to cut a similar deal with Khartoum in return for ending it.
The regime in Khartoum used the same tactic that it had employed extensively in the war in the south: it armed and paid Arabised groups (the Janjaweed militia) to fight the rebels.
And just as in the south, the bulk of the victims were innocent civilians.
A great many people died, and almost half the population fled to refugee camps that sprang up inside Darfur and across the frontier in Chad.
International aid agencies try to care for the refugees and the African Union sent a 7 000-strong force to protect them, but none of the foreigners took sides in the fighting.
At peace talks in Abuja last May Khartoum offered the rebels posts in the provincial government and a share of oil revenues, and one rebel group, Minni Minawi's Sudan Liberation Army, accepted the deal. However, two rival groups didn't - and even the SLA split, with breakaway factions joining the rejectionists to form the National Redemption Front.
In July fighting resumed, with Minnawi's SLA now cooperating with government troops and the Janjaweed against the remaining rebels. What is needed is not outside military intervention against either side, but a return to the peace table.
Alex de Waal, an advisor to the African Union mediation team at the talks, reckons that another $100 million on the table would probably have persuaded most of the rebel hold-outs to accept the deal. Darfur is not another Rwanda, another Cambodia, another Holocaust in the making, as the "Never Again" slogans of protesters in the West suggest.
It is a cruel war of a kind lamentably common in Africa, and the most useful thing non-Africans can do is to support the African Union's mediators and its troops on the ground.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Misinformation campaign regarding Darfur is alive & well
With the African Union in the process of withdrawing its troops from the war torn region of Darfur in Sudan, the Sudanese government is still balking at the United Nations sending peacekeepers into the region. Indeed, the Sudanese government has its own self interests in mind for not allowing Non-African troops into Sudan; however, misinformation propagated by members of the UN Security Council relating to the situation in Darfur could be considered one of several valid reasons to the Sudanese government for denying UN peacekeepers into Darfur.
The US government, in particular, along with lazy US reporters have continued to call the conflict in Darfur a "genocide" perpetrated by "Arabs" against "Africans." This misinformation has not only skewed the discourse of problem solving this horrible situation; it has also embolden rebel factions to continue fighting.
Read the following commentary, which debunks this misiformation. Unfortunately less than a week after its publication, the Washington Post decided to pull this article from its website.
5 Truths About Darfur
By Emily Wax
Sunday, April 23, 2006; B03
KOU KOU ANGARANA, Chad
Heard all you need to know about Darfur? Think again. Three years after a government-backed militia began fighting rebels and residents in this region of western Sudan, much of the conventional wisdom surrounding the conflict -- including the religious, ethnic and economic factors that drive it -- fails to match the realities on the ground. Tens of thousands have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced, with no end to the conflict in sight.
Here are five truths to challenge the most common misconceptions about Darfur:
1 Nearly everyone is Muslim.
Early in the conflict, I was traveling through the desert expanses of rebel-held Darfur when, amid decapitated huts and dead livestock, our SUV roared up to an abandoned green and white mosque, riddled with bullets, its windows shattered. In my travels, I've seen destroyed mosques all over Darfur. The few men left in the villages shared the same story: As government Antonov jets dropped bombs, Janjaweed militia members rode in on horseback and attacked the town's mosque -- usually the largest structure in town. The strange thing, they said, was that the attackers were Muslim, too. Darfur is home to some of Sudan's most devout Muslims, in a country where 65 percent of the population practices Islam, the official state religion.A long-running but recently pacified war between Sudan's north and south did have religious undertones, with the Islamic Arab-dominated government fighting southern Christian and animist African rebels over political power, oil and, in part, religion."But it's totally different in Darfur," said Mathina Mydin, a Malaysian nurse who worked in a clinic on the outskirts of Nyala, the capital of South Darfur. "As a Muslim myself, I wanted to bring the sides together under Islam. But I quickly realized this war had nothing to do with religion."
2 Everyone is black.
Although the conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, everyone in Darfur appears dark-skinned, at least by the usual American standards. The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers. Each tribe gives itself the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselvesArab. Sudan melds African and Arab identities. As Arabs began to dominate the government in the past century and gave jobs to members of Arab tribes, being Arab became a political advantage; some tribes adopted that label regardless of their ethnic affiliation. More recently, rebels have described themselves as Africans fighting an Arab government. Ethnic slurs used by both sides in recent atrocities have riven communities that once lived together and intermarried."Black Americans who come to Darfur always say, 'So where are the Arabs? Why do all these people look black?' " said Mahjoub Mohamed Saleh, editor of Sudan's independent Al-Ayam newspaper. "The bottom line is that tribes have intermarried forever in Darfur. Men even have one so-called Arab wife and one so-called African. Tribes started labeling themselves this way several decades ago for political reasons. Who knows what the real bloodlines are in Darfur?"
3 It's all about politics.
Although analysts have emphasized the racial and ethnic aspects of the conflict in Darfur, a long-running political battle between Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir and radical Islamic cleric Hassan al-Turabi may be more relevant.A charismatic college professor and former speaker of parliament, Turabi has long been one of Bashir's main political rivals and an influential figure in Sudan. He has been fingered as an extremist; before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Turabi often referred to Osama bin Laden as a hero. More recently, the United Nations and human rights experts have accused Turabi of backing one of Darfur's key rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement, in which some of his top former students are leaders.Because of his clashes with Bashir, Turabi is usually under house arrest and holds forth in his spacious Khartoum villa for small crowds of followers and journalists. But diplomats say he still mentors rebels seeking to overthrow the government."Darfur is simply the battlefield for a power struggle over Khartoum," said Ghazi Suleiman, a Sudanese human rights lawyer. "That's why the government hit back so hard. They saw Turabi's hand, and they want to stay in control of Sudan at any cost."
4 This conflict is international.
China and Chad have played key roles in the Darfur conflict.In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby came to power by launching a military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrowing President Hissan Habre. Deby hails from the elite Zaghawa tribe, which makes up one of the Darfur rebel groups trying to topple the government. So when the conflict broke out, Deby had to decide whether to support Sudan or his tribe. He eventually chose his tribe.Now the Sudanese rebels have bases in Chad; I interviewed them in towns full of Darfurians who tried to escape the fighting. Meanwhile, Khartoum is accused of supporting Chad's anti-Deby rebels, who have a military camp in West Darfur. (Sudan's government denies the allegations.) Last week, bands of Chadian rebels nearly took over the capital, N'Djamena. When captured, some of the rebels were carrying Sudanese identification.Meanwhile, Sudan is China's fourth-biggest supplier of imported oil, and that relationship carries benefits. China, which holds veto power in the U.N. Security Council, has said it will stand by Sudan against U.S. efforts to slap sanctions on the country and in the battle to force Sudan to replace the African Union peacekeepers with a larger U.N. presence. China has built highways and factories in Khartoum, even erecting the Friendship Conference Hall, the city's largest public meeting place.
5 The "genocide" label made it worse.
Many of the world's governments have drawn the line at labeling Darfur as genocide. Some call the conflict a case of ethnic cleansing, and others have described it as a government going too far in trying to put down a rebellion.But in September 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred to the conflict as a "genocide." Rather than spurring greater international action, that label only seems to have strengthened Sudan's rebels; they believe they don't need to negotiate with the government and think they will have U.S. support when they commit attacks. Peace talks have broken down seven times, partly because the rebel groups have walked out of negotiations. And Sudan's government has used the genocide label to market itself in the Middle East as another victim of America's anti-Arab and anti-Islamic policies.
Perhaps most counterproductive, the United States has failed to follow up with meaningful action. "The word 'genocide' was not an action word; it was a responsibility word," Charles R. Snyder, the State Department's senior representative on Sudan, told me in late 2004. "There was an ethical and moral obligation, and saying it underscored how seriously we took this." The Bush administration's recent idea of sending several hundred NATO advisers to support African Union peacekeepers falls short of what many advocates had hopedfor."We called it a genocide and then we wine and dine the architects of the conflict by working with them on counterterrorism and on peace in the south," said Ted Dagne, an Africa expert for the Congressional Research Service. "I wish I knew a way to improve the situation there. But it's only getting worse."
waxe@washpost.com
The US government, in particular, along with lazy US reporters have continued to call the conflict in Darfur a "genocide" perpetrated by "Arabs" against "Africans." This misinformation has not only skewed the discourse of problem solving this horrible situation; it has also embolden rebel factions to continue fighting.
Read the following commentary, which debunks this misiformation. Unfortunately less than a week after its publication, the Washington Post decided to pull this article from its website.
5 Truths About Darfur
By Emily Wax
Sunday, April 23, 2006; B03
KOU KOU ANGARANA, Chad
Heard all you need to know about Darfur? Think again. Three years after a government-backed militia began fighting rebels and residents in this region of western Sudan, much of the conventional wisdom surrounding the conflict -- including the religious, ethnic and economic factors that drive it -- fails to match the realities on the ground. Tens of thousands have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced, with no end to the conflict in sight.
Here are five truths to challenge the most common misconceptions about Darfur:
1 Nearly everyone is Muslim.
Early in the conflict, I was traveling through the desert expanses of rebel-held Darfur when, amid decapitated huts and dead livestock, our SUV roared up to an abandoned green and white mosque, riddled with bullets, its windows shattered. In my travels, I've seen destroyed mosques all over Darfur. The few men left in the villages shared the same story: As government Antonov jets dropped bombs, Janjaweed militia members rode in on horseback and attacked the town's mosque -- usually the largest structure in town. The strange thing, they said, was that the attackers were Muslim, too. Darfur is home to some of Sudan's most devout Muslims, in a country where 65 percent of the population practices Islam, the official state religion.A long-running but recently pacified war between Sudan's north and south did have religious undertones, with the Islamic Arab-dominated government fighting southern Christian and animist African rebels over political power, oil and, in part, religion."But it's totally different in Darfur," said Mathina Mydin, a Malaysian nurse who worked in a clinic on the outskirts of Nyala, the capital of South Darfur. "As a Muslim myself, I wanted to bring the sides together under Islam. But I quickly realized this war had nothing to do with religion."
2 Everyone is black.
Although the conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, everyone in Darfur appears dark-skinned, at least by the usual American standards. The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers. Each tribe gives itself the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselvesArab. Sudan melds African and Arab identities. As Arabs began to dominate the government in the past century and gave jobs to members of Arab tribes, being Arab became a political advantage; some tribes adopted that label regardless of their ethnic affiliation. More recently, rebels have described themselves as Africans fighting an Arab government. Ethnic slurs used by both sides in recent atrocities have riven communities that once lived together and intermarried."Black Americans who come to Darfur always say, 'So where are the Arabs? Why do all these people look black?' " said Mahjoub Mohamed Saleh, editor of Sudan's independent Al-Ayam newspaper. "The bottom line is that tribes have intermarried forever in Darfur. Men even have one so-called Arab wife and one so-called African. Tribes started labeling themselves this way several decades ago for political reasons. Who knows what the real bloodlines are in Darfur?"
3 It's all about politics.
Although analysts have emphasized the racial and ethnic aspects of the conflict in Darfur, a long-running political battle between Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir and radical Islamic cleric Hassan al-Turabi may be more relevant.A charismatic college professor and former speaker of parliament, Turabi has long been one of Bashir's main political rivals and an influential figure in Sudan. He has been fingered as an extremist; before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Turabi often referred to Osama bin Laden as a hero. More recently, the United Nations and human rights experts have accused Turabi of backing one of Darfur's key rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement, in which some of his top former students are leaders.Because of his clashes with Bashir, Turabi is usually under house arrest and holds forth in his spacious Khartoum villa for small crowds of followers and journalists. But diplomats say he still mentors rebels seeking to overthrow the government."Darfur is simply the battlefield for a power struggle over Khartoum," said Ghazi Suleiman, a Sudanese human rights lawyer. "That's why the government hit back so hard. They saw Turabi's hand, and they want to stay in control of Sudan at any cost."
4 This conflict is international.
China and Chad have played key roles in the Darfur conflict.In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby came to power by launching a military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrowing President Hissan Habre. Deby hails from the elite Zaghawa tribe, which makes up one of the Darfur rebel groups trying to topple the government. So when the conflict broke out, Deby had to decide whether to support Sudan or his tribe. He eventually chose his tribe.Now the Sudanese rebels have bases in Chad; I interviewed them in towns full of Darfurians who tried to escape the fighting. Meanwhile, Khartoum is accused of supporting Chad's anti-Deby rebels, who have a military camp in West Darfur. (Sudan's government denies the allegations.) Last week, bands of Chadian rebels nearly took over the capital, N'Djamena. When captured, some of the rebels were carrying Sudanese identification.Meanwhile, Sudan is China's fourth-biggest supplier of imported oil, and that relationship carries benefits. China, which holds veto power in the U.N. Security Council, has said it will stand by Sudan against U.S. efforts to slap sanctions on the country and in the battle to force Sudan to replace the African Union peacekeepers with a larger U.N. presence. China has built highways and factories in Khartoum, even erecting the Friendship Conference Hall, the city's largest public meeting place.
5 The "genocide" label made it worse.
Many of the world's governments have drawn the line at labeling Darfur as genocide. Some call the conflict a case of ethnic cleansing, and others have described it as a government going too far in trying to put down a rebellion.But in September 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred to the conflict as a "genocide." Rather than spurring greater international action, that label only seems to have strengthened Sudan's rebels; they believe they don't need to negotiate with the government and think they will have U.S. support when they commit attacks. Peace talks have broken down seven times, partly because the rebel groups have walked out of negotiations. And Sudan's government has used the genocide label to market itself in the Middle East as another victim of America's anti-Arab and anti-Islamic policies.
Perhaps most counterproductive, the United States has failed to follow up with meaningful action. "The word 'genocide' was not an action word; it was a responsibility word," Charles R. Snyder, the State Department's senior representative on Sudan, told me in late 2004. "There was an ethical and moral obligation, and saying it underscored how seriously we took this." The Bush administration's recent idea of sending several hundred NATO advisers to support African Union peacekeepers falls short of what many advocates had hopedfor."We called it a genocide and then we wine and dine the architects of the conflict by working with them on counterterrorism and on peace in the south," said Ted Dagne, an Africa expert for the Congressional Research Service. "I wish I knew a way to improve the situation there. But it's only getting worse."
waxe@washpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
