Genocide in Sudan

[Guest Cerebus]

About frickin' time. Wonderful that the Sudanese gov't has a seat on the UN Human Rights Comission eh?

 

As Genocide Unfolds

 

Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page B06

 

THE BUSH administration is waking up to Darfur, the western Sudanese province where Arab death squads have herded African villagers into refugee camps and are waiting for them to die. Two weeks ago Andrew Natsios, the administration's top aid official, estimated that at least a third of a million refugees are likely to perish for lack of food or basic medicines, and earlier this month Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged to the New York Times that the death squads have been supported by Sudan's government. Mr. Powell added that State Department lawyers are determining whether the killing, which the administration has already characterized as ethnic cleansing, may qualify for the term "genocide" -- a determination that would impose moral, political and arguably also legal obligations to intervene in Darfur.

 

The Darfur killings do look very much like genocide. The U.N. Convention on Genocide defines it as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" by, for example, "deliberately inflicting on members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." In keeping with this language, the Darfur violence has been targeted at a group defined by its black skin, with the objective not merely of looting land or cattle but of physical destruction. Aerial maps, interviews with refugees and reports from the region show that villages with ethnic African populations have been singled out for destruction; in one area, U.N. fact-finders came upon 23 African villages burned to the ground, while ethnic Arab villages, some separated from an African one by as little as 500 yards, were unscathed. Moreover, the refugees from the burned villages now face death not as some byproduct of conflict; their extermination is a main objective of the death squads and Sudan's government. The death squads attack refugees who venture out of their camps in search of food or firewood, and the government deliberately hampers international humanitarian efforts to deliver relief supplies. After a rebellion began in Darfur early last year, the Sudanese regime appears to have decided that, by wiping out a large fraction of the civilian population, it could deter copy-cat rebellions elsewhere.

 

Whatever label one attaches to these killings, there is a moral obligation to do everything possible to stop them. To ignore slaughter on this scale is to subscribe to an intolerably cramped view of Western interests, one that would drain foreign policy of its moral content, undermine its support among voters and damage the West's reputation in developing countries that already seek to paint high-minded Western rhetoric as hypocritical. The Bush administration, to its credit, understands this. But its strategy is out of kilter with the crisis on the ground.

 

The main thrust of that strategy is to build support for a resolution at the U.N. Security Council demanding that Sudan's government curb the death squads and grant full humanitarian access to the refugees. If such a resolution could be secured, Sudan's government would probably meet its demands rather than face sanctions; time and again, it has caved in the face of such pressure, reining in the domestic slave trade, expelling Osama bin Laden and most recently negotiating a settlement in its long-running war with rebels in Sudan's south. But the trouble is that the State Department expects the bargaining for a Security Council resolution to stretch out over several weeks -- a delay that, by the administration's own reckoning, will cost tens of thousands of lives. The rainy season in Darfur is already beginning, making it hard to deliver relief to the region. Mr. Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, expects that, if relief supplies don't get to Darfur, the death toll could approach 1 million.

 

It is outrageous that other members of the Security Council are dragging their feet on a resolution that could relieve the crisis. China and France both have oil investments in Sudan and do not wish to alienate the government; Russia and some non-permanent members of the Security Council such as Pakistan view a resolution as an infringement of sovereignty. In ordinary times, the United States might be able to prod these countries in the right direction. But the Bush administration is devoting its very limited diplomatic capital to Iraq, and there is little left for Darfur. That is why the U.N. resolution may take weeks.

 

The Bush administration must press harder at the United Nations, but it must also pursue other routes. It should publicly name officials in Sudan's government responsible for the Darfur policy, freezing any U.S. assets that they may have and barring them from visiting the United States; companies in which these Sudanese officials have interests should also be targeted. The administration should also announce its intention to prosecute the named individuals for war crimes unless humanitarian access to Darfur is immediately opened and unless the death squads are immediately brought to heel, something that Sudan's government apparently promised yesterday. Meanwhile, President Bush's team should push to expand the international presence in Darfur. A small African Union force is arriving to monitor the cease-fire; this must be supplemented with a force to protect refugees from militia harassment and another to ensure that aerial drops of relief supplies are delivered to the refugees who need them, rather than being stolen by armed groups.

 

The administration's foreign-policy plate is piled high already. But Darfur's crisis appears worse than anything the world has seen since the genocide in Rwanda. During that tragedy 10 years ago, the Clinton administration declined to act, refusing even to recognize that genocide was occurring lest such recognition compel action. The Bush administration must not let its own record be disfigured the same way.

[Highland 0]

Alot has gone on in Africa over the last decade that has somehow gotten below the radar of Western awareness. Hopefully this growing crises will serve as a wakeup call and show that action must be taken.

[MrRant 0]

Well it is dark over there....

[Vern Gagne 0]

Once again more proof of the religion of peace.

[EricMM 0]

Fixing Africas wars, if possible, would be an INCREDIBLY tall task for any country, perhaps especially the U.S. or any other Western country.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

it's impossible.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Once again more proof of the religion of peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3689615.stm

 

Yes, because its only Muslims who are capable of these kinds of atrocities, isn't it?

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, I gotta know---

 

WHY THE HELL IS IT THE US' RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM?

 

What the fuck is the UN for if it won't do this? Can somebody explain why this shithole of an organization EXISTS if the only people who will fix the problem is the UNITED STATES? What the hell does the UN offer us?

 

We get bitched at for interfering in other countries' problems. We get bitched at for NOT interfering, too, apparently.

 

Will the world make up its fucking mind?

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Last I checked the UN raises Millions and millions of dollars every year for feeding, Immunizing, and researching AIDS cures. I'd say that's something.

[Guest MikeSC]

Last I checked the UN raises Millions and millions of dollars every year for feeding, Immunizing, and researching AIDS cures. I'd say that's something.

We do MORE of that than the UN. We spend MORE on those things that the UN (Bush has been in the forefront of fighting AIDS in Africa).

 

Again, why is it the job of the US to do the job the UN is allegedly there to do?

 

Why don't we just LEAVE, as we do their job better than they do.

-=Mike

...BTW, I don't suppose mentioning that oil deals prevents countries like France from acting here would show that their opposition to the Iraq war might not have been, well, based on anything moral, would it?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

You're the ones that have turned yourselves into the world's police force.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Once again more proof of the religion of peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3689615.stm

 

Yes, because its only Muslims who are capable of these kinds of atrocities, isn't it?

Of course not. Horrible people exist in every religion.

 

Muslem murderers tend to commit these horrible acts in the name of their religion. More so than other religions.

[Vyce 0]

You're the ones that have turned yourselves into the world's police force.

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong for us to have that role.

 

But I do know that if we didn't act in that role, people like you would be bitching about us, being the major superpower of the world, having a moral and ethical responsibility to function in that capacity.

 

So really, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. People are going to bitch one way or the other.

 

I'm not sure that involving ourselves in African wars is a smart move, however. Many of those countries seem to be involved in conflicts that are even more insane than the Middle East, if that's possible.

[Highland 0]

The West showed it's indifference during the Rwanda massacres, so I don't see why we would suddenly have a change of heart for this crisis.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

You're the ones that have turned yourselves into the world's police force.

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong for us to have that role.

 

But I do know that if we didn't act in that role, people like you would be bitching about us, being the major superpower of the world, having a moral and ethical responsibility to function in that capacity.

 

So really, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. People are going to bitch one way or the other.

 

I'm not sure that involving ourselves in African wars is a smart move, however. Many of those countries seem to be involved in conflicts that are even more insane than the Middle East, if that's possible.

No. I oppose interfering in any local conflict unless it's a direct threat to my country, it's allies, or my way of life. Always have, always will.

[NoCalMike 0]

You're the ones that have turned yourselves into the world's police force.

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong for us to have that role.

 

But I do know that if we didn't act in that role, people like you would be bitching about us, being the major superpower of the world, having a moral and ethical responsibility to function in that capacity.

 

So really, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. People are going to bitch one way or the other.

 

I'm not sure that involving ourselves in African wars is a smart move, however. Many of those countries seem to be involved in conflicts that are even more insane than the Middle East, if that's possible.

No. I oppose interfering in any local conflict unless it's a direct threat to my country, it's allies, or my way of life. Always have, always will.

well that is an isolationist's way of thinking However, our government, especially this administration has not shared that view.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

No. An isolationist would want to completely isolate themselves from other countries, not just military-wise.

 

Trade and non-violent aid is compeletly different

[Guest MikeSC]

You're the ones that have turned yourselves into the world's police force.

If the US doesn't drag the world kicking and screaming, ATROCITIES NEVER STOP.

 

Ever.

 

And then WE get blamed for being silent about it.

 

We do more good than the UN has ever dreamed of doing. The best thing Bush could do for this country is to pull us out of it.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

You're the ones that have turned yourselves into the world's police force.

Well, more like the UN wasn't properly doing it's job so we had to pick up the pieces while they bitch at us for taking their job.

[Guest Cerebus]

Apparently, as this article suggests, Sudan may not be getting the attention it deserves not only because the victims are black, but because the butchers are black too.

 

Sound of Silence

by Robert Lane Greene

 

Recently I went to a launch event for the Arabic edition of a book called Crimes of War at a club for journalists here in London. Had a Martian attended the talks, he would have taken away the impression that the only "crimes of war" on earth are committed by Americans and Israelis. Of course, Abu Ghraib dominated the headlines at the time, so it stood to reason that the abuses by U.S. soldiers would be a major topic of discussion. But an hour and a half devoted solely to the transgressions of just two groups? Finally I raised my hand. What about the most enormous human rights and humanitarian crisis on Earth? In the Darfur region of western Sudan, government-backed Arab militias have waged a campaign of savagery for months against the region's black inhabitants. Half a million people have been uprooted, with their villages burned to the ground, and 100,000 (the lucky ones) have taken refuge across the border in Chad. Ten thousand, and perhaps far more, have been murdered outright. Rape is ubiquitous; victims are often scarred or branded to make their shame permanent. Wells are poisoned to make sure the survivors will not survive long. When those uprooted are unable to plant crops in the rainy season, which has recently begun, starvation will threaten the region's entire population of 5 million. And this is not, as the Sudanese government insists, the work of mere rogue militias; government jets have been seen strafing villages in support of the marauders.

 

Why, I wanted to know, had this not yet been brought up at a discussion of "crimes of war"? It's very hard for reporters to get into Darfur, explained the panel's moderator. We do have a piece on Darfur on our website, said the editor of CrimesOfWar.org. Perhaps it's the old racism at work, offered someone else; perhaps brown and black victims of war crimes count for less than white ones.

 

That last sentiment strikes me as only half the story. It's true that the deaths of tens of thousands of blacks in inaccessible regions of the world create far less urgency than one missing white girl in England or America. But a different kind of race-based relativism is also at work in the near-silence over Darfur. Dark-skinned victims count for less than whites, yes, but they count for less still if they are the victims of other dark-skinned people. It is often said that the reason we bombed Serbia but not Rwanda was because the victims in the Balkans were white, while the victims in Rwanda were black. But it is important to remember that the main perpetrators in the Balkans were also white (and, unlike their victims, Christian) and that the perpetrators in Rwanda were also black. You can be sure that if the Belgians or the Australians, or certainly the Americans or Israelis, were murdering, mutilating, and mass-raping tens of thousands of Africans, you wouldn't have the non-response we hear now over Darfur. Call it the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

 

When you compare the attention showered on various human rights problems today, it becomes clear that the world is once again judging the severity of abuses in large part by the ethnicity of their perpetrators. Not only has there been no call to arms over Sudan, there has barely been a call to anything--just 44 mentions of Darfur appeared in The New York Times' archive in the past year. It can't be simply because the victims are dark-skinned and poor, because the Times has featured 860 mentions of Abu Ghraib, where one or perhaps two people were killed and a number lightly tortured, beaten, and humiliated by Americans.

 

Abu Ghraib is a perfect storm for the media: Powerful Western soldiers abused and humiliated poor non-Westerners after invading their country for supposedly high-minded reasons. But when both the victims and the perpetrators are black or brown, you get the opposite: perfect calm.[]b/ Thirty-four peasant farmers were massacred by left-wing guerrillas in Colombia last week. (In the distance, a cricket chirps.) And the quiet is never more deafening than when the violence is in Africa. Our low expectations of African perpetrators permits the world's worst horrors--a genocide in Rwanda (800,000 dead); a decade-long war in Congo (3 million dead); and genocide in Darfur (many thousands dead and the death toll climbing fast). Yet New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is practically the only prominent media voice to write repeatedly about Darfur. Where are the conservatives who should say that the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are God-given and universal? Where are the liberals who should decry the racism that allows blacks to be killed with impunity?

 

They are not speaking up because ethnic murder in little-understood parts of the world is all too easy to describe with a sad shake of the head and something about "ancient hatreds." The United Nations defines genocide as killing "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Bush administration lawyers are currently looking into whether to use the word to describe Darfur, but have so far demurred. Their failure to change policies has ugly echoes of the Clinton administration's ban on the word "genocide" during the Rwandan massacres of 1994. Both presidents understood that using the word would bind them morally to act.

 

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are desperately trying to highlight Darfur. But they are trying to gain traction in a media market far more interested in stories of wrongdoing by American troops. This is not to downplay those abuses, or to change the subject. That tactic is often used by administration apologists, and it is shameful: Americans and all other Western governments should hold themselves to the highest possible standards, regardless of what anyone else does. But leaders in America, around the rest of the world, and perhaps most abhorrently in Africa itself, seem content not to hold the Sudanese to any standard of humanity at all. If we continue to ignore genocide because we don't think Africans are capable of any better, then it will be worse than a shame. It will be a crime.

[Guest MikeSC]

I can't disagree with the columnist.

 

The Balkans PALED in comparison to what happened in Rwanda and now in Sudan. People only got worked up over one of those three, though.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

The Balkans are right on the doorstep of Europe. Rwanda and the Sudan are not.

[Guest MikeSC]

The Balkans are right on the doorstep of Europe. Rwanda and the Sudan are not.

True --- but the people involved are also of a hue that will get a lot of the world to care.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Not that anyone would have admitted it as a reason in this PC age.

Edited June 23, 2004 by Naibus

[Guest MikeSC]

Not that anyone would have admitted it as a reason in this PC age.

I'm sure they wouldn't admit it.

 

But it doesn't change the fundamental truth.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

So what now?

 

This is potentially a far more explosive situation than anything in the Middle East right now and needs to be stopped now.

While I share MikeSC's opinion about the US solving everyone's problems (and then being shat on by the little ingrates) I do think this is one of those situations where there is a moral, if not political reason to intervene. I also think it will happen, since Bush has shown previously that he'll send in troops/aid/etc. when he feels it's "The right thing to do" (Liberia, Haiti, etc.)

[Guest MikeSC]

So what now?

 

This is potentially a far more explosive situation than anything in the Middle East right now and needs to be stopped now.

While I share MikeSC's opinion about the US solving everyone's problems (and then being shat on by the little ingrates) I do think this is one of those situations where there is a moral, if not political reason to intervene. I also think it will happen, since Bush has shown previously that he'll send in troops/aid/etc. when he feels it's "The right thing to do" (Liberia, Haiti, etc.)

Only problem is --- if we get in, how do we get out?

 

Nothing in Sudan indicates a group capable of governing legitimately. We don't want to train soldiers who will end up massacring their own people.

 

We'll likely go in --- and I don't know what we can accomplish.

-=Mike