Dimitri:

Thanks for posting this "different" Open Letter.

By the way: Should anybody be interested in another superb commentary, try taking a look at: 

"Attacking The ICTY And The ICJ Marlise Simons Goes Over the Top in Service to NATO PR," Dimitri Oram, Swans, June 4, 2007

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Today, American Idol was used as a vehicule to promote the idea that there is genocide in Darfur. Some young singer plaing a song by J Lennon called green day and in the bacg ground of his presentation, some superficoial images and the messages " stop the killing in darfur ".. I got to get ride of cable again..

No doubt that the EU has evolved from a Western European trade body into the supranational and intergovernmental body that it is today.

http://www.pharmacy-online.ca/

FYI, a sobering tale (with no end in sight) of how simplified discourse can lead to more blood and tears and how concerns of well meaning outsiders often end up being "hijacked by unilateral actions of other actors...following their own foreign policy agendas".

Helen according to Dimitri reports, the US is no stranger to the promotion and purveyance of violence in Sudan to the extend of hiring Rwanda's ethnic cleansers.. IMO the US should be outright banned from Afrika.

 

 

Dear David:

Thank you for posting this valuable although disturbing piece. I am posting a copy of the open letter (I was the primary, but by no means sole, drafter) which a group of us sent last summer to the various local organizations sponsoring an event to raise funds for humanitarian aid in Darfur and Sudan, more generally.

An Open Letter about the June 21, 2006 event:

Witnessing Darfur: A Benefit for the People of Darfur


Dear Friends,

We are writing to express our concern over the upcoming June 21 event:
WITNESSING DARFUR, to be held at Smith College, for which many local
religious, cultural or political organizations are co-sponsors (see
bottom). Like you we deeply believe in the need to alleviate the
people of Darfur's suffering, however, we strongly feel that the
position being taken, which many local organizations have supported,
namely that the Islamic government of Sudan is committing genocide
against the "African" people of Darfur, does not accurately reflect or
fully address the complexities and realities of the situation.

We strongly believe that the situation in Darfur should be placed in a
wider context and the role of the United States and other external
actors MUST be acknowledged and dealt with honestly if there is to be
peace and stability in Darfur, Sudan or indeed an improvement of basic
conditions. We encourage people to think carefully and examine the
history of humanitarian aid organizations before making any financial
contributions: it is well documented that certain organizations
working in Sudan have been involved in very dubious activities
counterproductive to expressed or publicized humanitarian aims.

We respectfully ask that people actively seek out and examine
different points of view. We emphasize that we are not trying to
malign or attack either any sponsor of this event, the producers of
the film(s) to be shown, or speaker Dr. Eric Reeves of Smith College;
rather we are calling for an open dialogue now and in the future. If
the U.S. wants to end the violence in Darfur and elsewhere its first
step should be to stop participating in it. We believe that our first
step as US citizens and residents should be to speak openly and
honestly and to hold the US government accountable. We find it
increasingly difficult to do so within the United States: can we
expect that it will be done in a far away, oil-rich country like
Sudan? (Petroleum is one of Darfur's several coveted resources.)

We respectfully encourage all those who wish to allocate funds for aid
in Darfur to do so, but to write them after careful examination of ALL
the facts. We respectfully ask the Community Foundation of Western
Massachusetts to HOLD all Sudan Aid Funds received, to date, or
subsequently, for the same reasons. We call on co-sponsor Mayor Clare
Higgins and the town of Northampton to hold a public hearing,
immediately, where the entire spectrum of issues can be openly and
publicly aired. Given the gravity of the situation and people's desire
to alleviate the very real suffering in Darfur, we ask the sponsors of
this event, and people concerned about the Darfur situation, to press
for this hearing to occur immediately.

We urge you to read the SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION we have provided
below; this is by no means an exhaustive or comprehensive sampling of
relevant issues. We also ask that you circulate this letter widely,
forward to your organizations' mailing list, to all interested
parties, and the press.

With sincerity and best wishes,

Deborah Chandler, graphic designer and activist, Northampton, MA
<deborahchandler@comcast.net >

Dimitri Oram, writer & researcher, Northampton, MA
<dadima23@yahoo.com >,

Doug Wight, writer & activist, Northampton MA
"Doug Wight" <wellness15@yahoo.com>

Keith Harmon Snow, genocide & human rights investigator, Williamsburg, MA.
<ksnow_srintl@yahoo.com >< www.allthingspass.com >, 413-626-3800.
{Contractual experience in the human rights arena includes: [a]
Consultant on Genocide, United Nations: Ethiopia, 2005; [b] Genocide
Investigator, Genocide Watch <www.genocidewatch.org >: Sudan &
Ethiopia, 2004; [c] Genocide Investigator, Survivor's Rights
International < www.survivorsrightsinternational.org >: Sudan and
Ethiopia, 2004; [d] work at the International Criminal Tribunal on
Rwanda (2001). Also independent human rights researcher in the Dem.
Rep. of Congo, 2004-2006; ten years experience in 17 countries in
Africa.

***************************************************************

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Undisclosed information about the current geopolitical realities
regarding the Darfur conflict include the facts about the U.S. was
funding and supporting forces in Southern Sudan (Sudan People's
Liberation Army & Movement: SPLA/M) throughout the 1990s and beyond.
We believe the US is still supporting rebel forces in Darfur thus
actively contributing to the conflict. We are aware these are strong
charges but there is plenty of documented evidence for the former
charge and a good deal of circumstantial evidence for the latter. A
quick sampling reveals:

€ "The Clinton administration has launched a covert campaign to
destabilize the government of Sudan which it considers a key supporter
of international terrorism and instability in the Middle East. More
than $20 million of military equipment, including radios, uniforms and
tents will be shipped to Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda in the next few
weeks. Although the equipment is earmarked for the armed forces of
those countries, much of it will be passed on to the Sudan People's
Liberation Army (SPLA), which is preparing an offensive against the
government in Khartoum." (James Adams "Americans Move to Destabilize
Sudanese Regime," Sunday Times, Nov. 17, 1996);
€ "U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had a surprise meeting
in Kampala [Uganda] Wednesday with Sudanese opposition leaders
including SPLA rebel chief John Garang in what was seen as a move
further pressuring Khartoum's Islamic fundamentalist leaders. Albright
told reporters that Washington sought to show top-level support for
efforts to secure political change in Sudan, where Garang's Sudanese
People's Liberation Army in the Christian and animist South has fought
troops of the Moslem North since 1983." (Dec. 10, 1997, Deutsch Presse
Agenteur);
€ "Welcome to the 1980s. Long live Ronald Reagan. Remember the
scenario‹a rebel group being trained and armed by the CIA to topple a
sovereign government, cross-border incursions from secluded camps, and
the whole destabilization exercise backed by international sanctions
and a massive propaganda campaign. It sounds like Nicaragua or Angola
circa 1984. In fact it's Sudan 1998." (Jonathan Steele, "Stop this war
now; The US could remove the threat of starvation for thousands of
Sudanese May 1, 1998 The Guardian);
€ "[T]o the peril of regional stability, the Clinton Administration
has used northern Uganda as a military training ground for southern
Sudanese rebels fighting the Muslim government of Khartoum...The
people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is
US government policy said former president Carter in an interview last
week in Mozambique "The US is committed to overthrowing the government
in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by
policies of the United States" Kurt Schillinger "Carter, Others say
Clinton has faltered on Africa" Dec. 8, 1999 Boston Globe).

A confirmed and egregious violation of international law was the U.S.
bombing of Sudan's sole pharmaceutical plant in 1998 with all the
misery and death that followed. With a background like that isn't it
possible that the U.S. is still covertly intervening in Sudan
especially Darfur? Is it mere coincidence that the rebels in Darfur
launched their first major attacks the month that USAID set up its
mission in Darfur?

€ "Under the Bush administration, the work of USAID has become
increasingly politicized. But over Sudan, in particular, two of its
most senior officials have long held strong personal views. Both
Natsios, a former vice-president of the Christian charity World
Vision, and [Roger] Winter have long been hostile to the Sudanese
government." (U.S. 'hyping' Darfur Genocide Fears by Peter Beaumont,
03 October 2004, The Observer)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1318643,00.html

The U.N., the European Union, Medecins Sans Frontieres, aid groups,
U.N. officials and human rights groups have all questioned the
genocide claims.

While no one doubts there is horrendous death and suffering in Darfur
use of the word genocide has been used to put all blame on the
government, exonerate the rebels and prevent peace. Indeed, as Emily
Wax writes "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." (Washington Post, "5 Truths About
Darfur," April 21, 2006)

The African Union "peacekeeping" mission in Darfur includes U.S.
military personnel; training and logistical support by the U.S.
military has also been provided. (See: Department of Defense, "U.S.
Transports Rwanda Forces to Sudan":
<http://www.pentagon.gov/home/photoessays/2005-07/p20050718b1.html >

Rwandan Defense Forces sent to Darfur are themselves responsible for
crimes against humanity and acts of genocide in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, and these troops are highly linked to the U.S.
military (Rwanda New Times, 15 May 2006). The U.S. military's European
Command (EUCOM) is also partnered with Uganda, and working with
Ugandan troops, and Uganda's role in Sudanese affairs mirrors its role
in Congo: clandestine guerrilla activities, massacres, rapes,
extortion, gun-running and plundering of natural resources. These have
all been widely documented by numerous international human rights
bodies.

The African Union mission also included supporting operations by
private military contractor Dyncorp: Dyncorp was caught running a sex
slave ring in Bosnia, was sued for illegally spraying toxic herbicides
in Ecuador, believed to have smuggled drugs from Colombia and is
generally accused of brutal behavior wherever it goes. Pacific
Architects and Engineers (PAE) is also on the AU job. According to
Corpwatch: PAE "has a history of being accused of overcharging." Also,
PAE "already provides[d] staff for a so-called Civilian Protection
Monitoring Team (CPMT) which monitors human rights in Sudan under the
State Department contract. The CPMT office is run by Brigadier General
Frank Toney (retired), who was previously commander of Special Forces
for the United States Army and organized covert missions into Iraq and
Kuwait in the first Gulf War."

Could these mercenary groups be involved in helping the rebel groups?
It is also uncomfortable that a State Department official connected to
Sudan issues who wished to remain anonymous said: "We are not allowed
to fund a political party or agenda under United States law, so by
using private contractors, we can get around those provisions. Think
of this as somewhere between a covert program run by the CIA and an
overt program run by the United States Agency for International
Development. It is a way to avoid oversight by Congress." (CorpWatch
Oct. 21, 2004)

It's also true that a number of humanitarian groups are far from
impartial. Several of them were and probably still are smuggling
weapons into Sudan and working toward regime change. Norwegian
People's Aid (NPA) was caught red-handed and its role in supplying
arms to the SPLA was the subject of a 1999 Norwegian television
documentary, entitled 'Weapons Smuggling in Sudan'. "CSI [Christian
Solidarity International], along with the U.S.-based groups Voice of
the Martyrs and Samaritan's Purse (run by Franklin Graham, the son of
Billy Graham), are among a handful of Christian groups that have taken
sides in the dispute. They work exclusively in southern Sudan‹and
provide not only humanitarian aid but also political and sometimes
logistical support for the southern rebels...Even during the peace
talks, they've lobbied the U.S. government to provide military aid and
weaponry to the SPLM...According to Human Rights Watch, the SPLM, like
Khartoum, has committed numerous human-rights violations." (Fighting a
Peace Plan: Some Christian aid groups are supporting the rebels, by E.
Benjamin Skinner, August 18, 2003 NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL.)

To the best of our knowledge Eric Reeves has never discussed the
active US role in destabilizing Sudan despite his years of research.
We feel compelled to ask why this is the case. We also believe that he
has not dealt straightforwardly with past SPLA crimes including
attacks on humanitarian aid workers, sexual violence and the
recruitment of child soldiers, bringing them up only while asserting
that "there is no equivalence" between the rebels and the government
of Sudan. We are also worried by Eric Reeves's publicly stated
position of "regime change," where Sudan's government be "removed by
whatever means are necessary", and by his call for "comprehensive
economic sanctions" and the formation of a new government by external
powers (Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2004). We feel such a stance is
antithetical to an antiwar movement based on opposition to imperial
violence and intervention in the affairs of other nations.

We do not excuse violence, murder, or sexual atrocities committed by
any side, but we question the predominant version of events in
Darfur‹which we believe is grossly disinformational and
one-sided‹presented by the mass media and by both Right- and Left-wing
political factions in the United States. We want to know where money
marked for "Sudan Aid" is going, and we do not so quickly accept some
of the answers that are being given. We are greatly disturbed by the
fact that the ultra-Right Wing organization Center for Security
Policy, a strong proponent of multi-billion dollar programs in
National Missile Defense and a tool of the military industrial complex
is advocating divestment from the same firms Eric Reeves has and is
targeting. [1]

We note that the organization Save the Children is closely tied to
USAID, its board of trustees includes one retired Rear Admiral, and
almost all the others (15) are connected to the mainstream US media
(ABC, CBS, Hollywood). More concerning, Save the Children is funded in
part by Exxon-Mobil (according to an Exxon-Mobil corporate report) to
build a road through neighboring Chad‹a country with a heavy U.S.
military involvement‹to the Darfur region: we are concerned that this
may be for strategic and military purposes cloaked under the banner of
humanitarian aid and poverty alleviation.

The role of USAID official Roger Winter with the U.S. Committee for
Refugees includes organizing support for the Rwanda Patriotic Front
invasion of Rwanda in 1990; the U.S. Committee for Refugees remains a
highly unusual political organization with a specious agenda.

The director/advisers of the International Rescue Committee include
Henry Kissinger.


[1] See: < http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=01-F_68
>;
please also examine the CSP's take on the antiwar movement
< http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?topic  

David,

 

I heard the french want to boycott the 2008 olympics to punish china for its “blood for oil” role in sudan.

 

Meanwhile, the mother of all “blood for oil” scam, aka uncle sham, doesn't even get a slap on his wrist for invading afghan and iraq and also Somalia by proxy. No cry of sanction from the “world community”.

hell, right now the world's super rogue is unashamedly threatening sudan with sanction itself, gearing up for yet another "humanitarian intervention", with the "world community" [sic] cheering on.

 

We can whine and whine to our hearts contents here, but at the end of the day,

Its still MIGHT MAKE RIGHT isnt it?

Helen k wrote : By comparison the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is orders of magnitude more urgent and serious than than the low instensity brutality endured by the Palestinians. thats bullshit really, the conditions of palestinian has been ignored for too long, as well each time a new conflict start somewhere people forget our palestinian brother and the pseudo-state of israel lead more abuse.. the problem isarel- palestine is not just a palestinian problem, a decisive peace and partition should be decided by other impartial nations.. we could disqualify the US to partakes these negotiations since this country export war and terrorism.. We could disqualify Israel since this country want to expand by militrary might. Somebody else should decide because the US and Israel has always acted in bad faith.

You are a very confused Helen..although not a full leftist myself, i don't understand you claim the left exploit the situation because the left aint making money.. I cannot condenm the left because it is willing to bring ideas and many are committed for better way of living.. remember it is not the economy that feed people but the earth from which we grow our food...so all that pro-capital bullshit must end. A US military profiteer make money each time a palestinian or lebanese dies.. that is exploitation upon the living. The best way I think to bring an end to the atrocities (if any) would be to ensure the US is banned from Afrika.. I mean seriously the only reason why the US wanna go to darfur is to exert a control on the region for its oil and make money "killing people".. I wonder when your country is going to be part of the world community instead of a profiteer and a purveyor of violence.. I wonder what you will personally do to stop the killings of innocent people or will you just board your SUV..

There is no reason why one cannot be opposing the invasion of Iraq and the genocide in Darfur at the same time. Just because someone has an agenda in highlighting Darfur it doesn't follow that it is not happening or it doesn't deserve attentions. In the same way you clearly has an agenda in beating the dead horse of Palestine since 1948, but it is not a valid reason to dismiss the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians just because it is exploited for political purpose by leftist hacks like yourself.

Your ongoing tripes are an insult to the intelligence of many sincere and decent people who correctly conclude that the behavor of the Sudanese government is unacceptible in a civilized world and try to find some ways to put an end to it.

It is clear that the only reason why you are in continued denial about the daily horror in Darfur is because you can't use it in your sport of American bashing. Since it flies in the face of your guiding dogma that the U.S is responsible for all evils in the world you just have to dismiss it to preserve your dogma. You will be up in arms if even one Palestinian get shot. By comparison the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is orders of magnitude more urgent and serious than than the low instensity brutality endured by the Palestinians. I am not saying that we shouldn't care about the Palestinians, I am only highlighting your hypocrisy and selective humanitarianism.

Shame on you.

Helen K

It might lead to a smarter politics if more humanitarians would realize that human rights are not the "antipolitics" they once were packaged as. Or, that their practice would have anything to do with base instincts of those carrying out the "scramble for Africa", even as we might debate the finer points of John Rawls's thought experiments (discussed here and and in audio format, here).

RE: the link on the odyssey and travails of rights: I don't think Human Rights should be denigrated because they are used for improper legitimating. I've thought that the “invention” of human rights grew out of notions like the Golden Rule (“Treat others as you want to be treated”), as “codified” with Kant's Categorical Imperative (“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”), and developed with, e.g., John Rawls' “Theory of Justice,” with its “Veil of Ignorance,” where people would make laws ignorant of what position they might have in a society. Of course, morality (or even justice) is relative if reality is just logical-geometrical informational-facts; but there does seem to be a common sentiment that, e.g. sentience is precious and is to be valued, especially to the extent that it is or can be more self-conscious. Even though some “imperialist ambitions” seem to be couched in justification based on “human rights,” I don't think it's the “rights” that are really being used as justification, but the “utilitarian,” or “consequentialist” cost-benefit projections for, e.g., use of the military. Although both may revolve around the golden rule, I think there is a big difference between Utilitarian based ethics (which are action oriented, but might be used to legitimate slavery and abuse), and Rights based ethics (which don't say a lot about imperative intervention, imo). Are not Human Rights abuses used as justification to criticize the use of Human Rights as false justifications? (I.e. some use Human Rights violations to legitimate the consequent violation of Human Rights?) (BTW, General Petraeus: do you think Japan's consequent economic success was a retroactive justification of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima!?!) But even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be imperfect: it still defines the rights to marriage, as that between a man and a woman. I think our codification of the “Golden Rule” needs even further refinement.

FYI, curious story about how an NGO from the right side of global tracks succeeded in bringing people together in a war ravaged country through sheer annoyance.

Interesting in it's own way, another recent story on the odyssey (or is it "travails"?) of rights.

I don't want to present my interest in Sudan as a diversion to David's point about Iraq—but I am a little uncomfortable with the possibility (maybe not David's intention) of playing down Sudan, to play up Iraq. The majority of the US and Iraq want the US out of Iraq, and I never wanted the US in (I don't think the Kofi Annan endorsed “Responsibility to Protect” report would have justified the Iraq invasion (thanks for that link)). And the “genocide” label seems to be employed about Sudan, to put the option of military intervention on the table, while ignoring the tribal diversity of the “African” farmers attacked by the “Arab”-speaking Janjaweed nomads. Hypocrisy aside, I think non-military intervention in Sudan is called for, as it called for in many other areas: a region needing (1) importation of resources and/or investment, (2) help re-aligning the “bandits-turned-‘militia'” Janjaweed on a culturally sustainable path, and (3) political pressure (but not arming the SLM, etc!) on the military coup authoritarian “Arab” Sudanese government to respect it's non-“Arab” population—and give them proper representation, and not support the subversion of the non-“Arab” population's human rights. Respecting what I think is SK's call for looking to “local solutions” and “first-hand-accounts;” I still think it would be a disrespect, not to expect a modicum of decency from your neighbors—that decency concerning the matter of justice (law), and not morality (a matter of character, imo). I imagine that David might agree that many in the international community (like those intellectuals signing the letter in question on this blog) have disrespected the US—as if it is simply expected to screw things up on the international scene in a huge way. Although there has been little silence on the Iraq issue, admittedly, why give the US some sort of pass? Respect for authority, and refusal to admit that authority is fallible? Why treat power like some sort of familiar parent that might be forgiven (or not even recognized as a transgressor), rather than some stranger that would be punished for the same offence? And how to “punish”: Call for the impeachment of the executive office for incompetent execution of a deceptively sold plan?—when the congress, press, and public too had a duty of fidelity to the truth? There was a reelection. There is not a majority of the “told-you-so” sort internally to the US: is a “bad US ‘image'” the best the rest of the world can do? Or “forbid” US leaders “luxury goods?” But also, how do you forgive a transgressor, when they are still transgressing? I too think both the Sudan and Iraq “problems” have some similarities, one being that there are decentralized “groups” involved (e.g., the Janjaweed in Sudan, and the insurgency + now Al Qaeda in Iraq), which cannot be addressed with your typical military campaign. This is not a case of claiming the high ground and maintaining a perimeter (or expanding “the green zone”). There is a combination of repressed and resource/power desperate minorities: needing political redress; plus criminal traditions: needing “rehabilitative education” and policing—not a conventional military's forte. It is this caustic combination: decentralized desperate political minorities turned rebel/criminal with real or perceived grievances, combined with criminal traditions that presents a huge problem for the centralized establishments; centralized establishments that fuel the desperation and outrage of the political minorities by playing the role of the unholy parent. A question arises: how far do the rights of human beings need to be violated before terrorism (a small minority declaring war) is justified? Will there be a UN resolution on this?

SK et al.:

Thanks: "The Politics of Naming," Mahmood Mamdani, London Review of Books, April 26, 2007.

Unfortunately, where Mamdani mentions how the letters written in response to his important March 8 article "raise five main issues," he is clearly working from a skewed letter sample.  As my letter to the LRB was never published -- in fact, in comparison to the eight or nine letters the LRB did select for publication, mine was only one that advanced Mamdani's thesis -- let me reproduce it here:

To the Editor of the London Review of Books:

In his powerful commentary ("The Politics of Naming," LRB, March 8), Mahmood Mamdani asks: "[H]ow does one explain the fact that the focus of the most widespread and ambitious humanitarian movement in the US is on Darfur and not on Kivu?"

Mamdani's answer is that "Unlike Kivu, Darfur can be neatly integrated into the War on Terror, for Darfur gives the Warriors on Terror a valuable asset with which to demonise an enemy: a genocide perpetrated by Arabs."

I believe this answer has a great deal of merit.  Ultimately, however, it is only partly true. 

The reason there is a massive Save Darfur Coalition, but nothing comparable in the way of a Save Kivu (Congo) Coalition, is less that Darfur serves to channel human interest away from the Congo, or even to channel it into the "War on Terror."

Rather, the reason the crisis in Darfur by late 2003 had become what one phony moralist in the States later called a "cause celebre in America"[1] was to channel human interest away from the death and destruction caused by the U.S. and U.K. aggression against Iraq.

In the U.S. and U.K., decrying and organizing around an alleged "genocide perpetrated by Arabs"[2] in the western Sudan fits nicely with the failure to decry and organize around the crimes of the Americans and British in Iraq.  Mamdani notes, for example, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, established by the Security Council in late 2004.  But where is the Security Council's commission of inquiry into the U.S. - U.K. war?  Where is the inquiry to determine whether any member of the U.S. and U.K. governments might be responsible for ordering this "supreme international crime"? 

In the U.S. and U.K., the noise about "genocide" in Darfur belongs to this historical context.  The channeling of emotions into Darfur is best understood as a monumental case of Iraq-avoidance.  Nor is it likely there will be a Save Iraq Coalition anytime soon.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

  1. "The Sudanese government could hardly have predicted that an obscure, inaccessible Muslim region like Darfur would become a cause celebre in America." Samantha Power, "Dying in Darfur," New Yorker, August 30, 2004, par. 85. 
  2. For a classic expression of this line, see Shlomo Avineri, " Darfur - exposing Arab goals for what they are," Jerusalem Post, August 3, 2004

 

FYI, Mamdani responds to his infuriated critics--who seem psychically incapable of accepting even a smidgen of his framing of the conflict--here.

JDCasten:

There are no intruders here. --

Since the second-half of 2003, the western Sudan has been treated as case of world-class barbarity, complete with marauding black Arab Muslims who carry out a campaign of genocide on behalf of the state (and which Human Rights Watch, Nicholas Kristof, and others claim they can prove), and babies ripped from their mothers arms and hurled onto bonfires.  And for only for maybe 24 months longer, the planet has been treated as the battlefield for the clash between civilized peoples everywhere and the terrorists -- but the Islamo-terrorists in particular.   

All you need to remember is that whereas the Sudan is the object of Security Council resolutions, an International Commission of Inquiry into Darfur (Antonio Cassese et al., January 25, 2005), and an endless stream of socio-emotional chest-pounding among the superior races in the North, no comparable body has ever been empanelled to conduct an inquiry into the states that launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (just to name the two most recent cases), nor has the Security Council so much as considered these acts of aggression -- for reasons too obvious to mention.

So these moral giants want to tell us about their "responsibility to protect"?  Who's going to protect the world from these protectors?

There is no reason why any of us ought to think about the world through the same intellectual and moral prism. 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

      

Not to intrude, but— Great links. I get the impression of a never-ending inter-hyper-textuality where one never reaches the ends of all splitting threads, but is enriched by the journey. I hope I made it clear above, with my “We're Your Savior, Inc.” quip and my comment about the less powerful stipulating how power is shared (and I don't think wealth is necessarily a zero-sum game), that I think Mukoma Ngugi's points are important. I'm not sure if he was quoting someone else, but I think Fareed Zakaria said somewhere something to the effect that “often, the truth lies in the middle, but is lost in the crossfire.” Contemporary power sharing often revolves around two major issues, imo: trying to maintain and expand power (power including money, might, and ideas), while trying to empower others by enfolding them within the existing power structures. A problem with this latter part, “soft imperialism,” is that one size does not fit all (not even fitting all within the greater power itself). But I, for one, am against extremes of both absolute collective homogeneity and absolute autonomous heterogeneity. I think isolationism and assimilation have their own respective dangers… and seeking an ever shifting balance is wise (and hence I'm troubled by implications that everyone should figure things out on their own on the one hand, or that what has “proven successful” for some, should hold for all on the other (—maybe something like Fair Trade strives to balance these issues (I'm not sure what in general would constitute a “Fair Intervention” policy))). More to the point, I think many would agree here that military intervention in Darfur is, at least, not hoped for—but there seems to be an implication that, for example, The International Red Cross and Red Crescent might be a bad idea: I don't think so. “Is all ‘pornography' bad, or just when it's not done right?” Extreme posturing can make issues seem simpler than they are (although, I too am often guilty of over-simplifying implications). I found David's “Three Questions” link/blog entry instructive—his third question about Iraq prefigures this blog entry/open letter. While agreeing with the importance of seeing crisis level/media reportage ratios as being shaped by political agendas, I'm not so sure about the implied attitude towards questioning the necessity of humanitarian crises being reported widely, and put on the “public agenda.” Which “public” we're talking about is important, but I think that crises of death and suffering untold and hidden are the most hopeless—and an uninformed “public” may be a deluded one- a deluded “democracy” being potentially dangerous. (My preference for media reportage would increase from: no information, opaque disinformation, transparent disinformation, and then: the plain facts).

SK:

"Africa does not need more Western philanthropy," Mukoma Ngugi, ZNet, April 21, 2007

Thanks.  As always.

By the way: My original ZNet piece from late July 2004 on the use and abuse of sub-Saharan Africa by the Africanists in the North (i.e., Orientalists, of course, but focused on Africa) was obliterated in a top-down decision by ZNet's administrators in January 2006.  So I can no longer link to it.  But for a handful of other items that still do survive:

"Manufacturing Public Opinion," ZNet, March 7, 2005
"'The Secret Genocide Archive'," ZNet, March 16, 2005
"Three Questions," ZNet, March 18, 2005
"Red Meat for the Christian Right," ZNet, July 2, 2005

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

btw, a very worthwhile piece in yesterday's znet on how "Africa also cleanses the conscience of Africanist scholars, evangelists and missionaries, the rock and roll musicians who want to save Africa through orphan adoption, and philanthropists with Mother-Theresa complexes."

Africa and Africans also serve as props for the anti-genocidalism of Western NGOS, even as flesh and blood Africans try to get on with their lives and ignore their assigned role of "victims or executioners". President Kagame of Rwanda responded to criticism of indigenous institutions for promoting reconciliaton from the likes of Human Rights Watch this way: "It is because again we want to do things our own way--they want to give lessons.... This hysteria always mounts when there is a big event: the constitution, the elections. They forecast disaster. We just have to go on with our own business of changing lives here."

I wouldnt call it condemnation of israel, what did they got a spank on their fingers? were they forced to give back the lands, compensate the victims?

Where is the outrage in the US African-American community. After all, tens of 1000s are being slaughtered in Africa. Where are the UN condemnations, by the general assembly, by the human rights commissions (I guess they are too busy condemning only Israel, like a broken record). Where is the outrage among the British Journalist groups? A few articles here and there, some calls for action, but strange silence among most US and international bodies. I think outright talk of Arab Muslims killing Blacks en masse is not "advantageous" for most so-called human rights groups. Better to accuse Israel. Better to accuse the US. For these two countries there is widespread outrage. But for one of the greatest massacres of the last 50 years (Rwanda more? Cambodia? anyway, Darfur is up there) there is strange.............silence. Kind of blunts the moral authority of most "human rights" groups.

SK (& David)—although I agree that “these conflicts are being presented in a very selective and instrumental manner for advancing agendas” I differ a little about their having “little, if anything, to do with humanitarian reasons.” My quoting the death figures above, highlighting poverty, was to point out that there are bigger problems elsewhere (everywhere), and that almost everyone, has some sort of agenda, in highlighting whatever “crisis” it is that they point to. There is usually at least Some element of crisis, imo, in anything that is pointed too: my point is, don't forget that real crises are involved, when denigrating the power-play. I claim no expertise on the Sudan, (or India)… but I think most people rely on arbitrating a cacophony of more educated experts (and even the experts do this) to sort out what seems most verifiable and reasonable. I realize the Znet blogs are not really a forum (this is David Peterson's blog)… but I've personally engaged here to learn more. I too have my politics (radical moderate, global democracy held in check by universal human rights, etc.)… and I think there are political “solutions” implied by some of the commentary's here—some politics, not quite in line with my own—the “other” selectivity that a critical arbiter must expose. The UN seems to be the proper channel to address human rights grievances: anything else is vigilantism. But there are bullies within the UN too, who want more say because of their power, than because of their Real human rights records & size of their represented populace. That is a factor that must be stood up to, and I think David does so in his finer moments. Fighting poverty, for example, is an obligation which requires transfer of wealth from the haves to have-nots (be it by “charity,” or regulation)—and I think it is always difficult to stipulate to power, how that power is to be shared, and not used as a weapon to maintain and expand it.

SK et al.:

The doctrinal institutions did not disappoint us:

"President George W. Bush Speaks at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum," U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, April 18, 2007
"President Bush Visits the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum," White House Office of the Press Secretary, April 18, 2007

"Bush warns Sudan of more sanctions," James Gerstenzang and Maggie Farley, Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2007
"Bush Presses Sudan on Darfur, Citing Possible U.S. Sanctions," Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, April 19, 2007
"No More Delay on Darfur," Editorial, New York Times, Apil 19, 2007
"This may look like a UN plane...but Sudan used it to bomb Darfur," Richard Beeston, The Times, April 19, 2007 
"A Despicable Deception," Editorial, The Times, April 19, 2007
"Bush Unveils And Delays Sanctions For Sudan," Michael Abramowitz and Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, April 19, 2007

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

JDCasten et al.:

The contemporary period is rich in Great Power counter-revolutions that, at least initially, were portrayed as normative advancements rather than reactions and reversions to the elementary principle of Might Makes Right.  People with independent, critical minds won't be fooled by any of this.  On the other hand....

The "Crisis in Darfur" has been packaged and sold under this counterrevolutionary banner -- and at the very same period of history during which the world's Supreme International Criminal devastates two foreign countries.  Go figure.

"[A]rmed intervention is synonymous with aggression," the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty affirmed.  It continued (A/RES/2131):

No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.  Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.

The way it looks to me, since 1989-1991, we've witnessed a sort of Great Power coup against the UN Charter, and against principles that existed to deprive the Great Powers of the right to threaten or resort to violence, all in the name of "human rights."  So the spirit of decolonization and non-alignment expressed for example by the 1965 declaration I just quoted has been vanquished, and in its place we find the rich, powerful states of the North talking among themselves about how superior they are and how much the world needs their leadership and interference and even conquest.

To be absolutely clear: This counterrevolution is not something with which I ally myself.  Nor do I believe that anybody on the authentic Left would, either.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

The long and short of what I'm saying is that these conflicts and situations are being presented in a very selective and instrumental manner for advancing agendas that have little, if anything, to do with humantarian reasons and almost everything to do with messianic projects of power projection and self-aggrandisement.

Dr. Gino Strada, founder of the NGO, Emergency and someone who's painfully familiar with the reality of Darfur--yet, unusually for an aid worker, doesn't mince his words when speaking of harsh realities that cut the wrong way--put it this way in this audio interview (staring around minute 29, transcript here):

All of this business of genocide in Sudan, for instance, I think has come up as an idea to sort of pave the ground for a possible military intervention. And next door there is the Federal Republic--Democratic Republic of Congo, where four million people have died because of the conflict, and no one has ever thought about mentioning genocide. So I think that, you know, we should try to get media attention to the real problems. Humanitarian problems cannot be, you know, submitted to politics basically, and this is what happens regularly. A country comes to the light of the media when there are some political agendas from very powerful nations behind them. Think about Afghanistan. Who speaks about Afghanistan now?

Speaking of Afghanistan, the ugly situation of women there became a raging cause celebre in the wake of 9/11, but how many are aware that the plight of women in North India is quite comparable--"one of the very few parts of the world where men live longer than women, even today" (there's mention of same phenomenon, which affects mind boggling numbers of people, yet is hardly known in the West despite having been studied extensively by top notch social scientists for a long time, in this clip--starting around minute 2).

To summarize, if you don't want to become an "unwitting shill" for ulterior agendas, you'd do well to pay attention to the politics behind portrayal of these situations.

Although a “home-grown solution-finding showcase” would be ideal, are you suggesting that no “aid and equipment” should be imported into the Darfur region to help with the displaced? I don't see aid workers as that colonial. I'm highly skeptical that all sorts of human rights organizations are ringing their alarms because China and not the EU or US has as much interest in Sudan's oil, or because they need at least someone to save. Putting things in perspective is one thing, but downplaying suffering as relative so that a particular political world-view can seem to provide the “real” solution can be dangerous: distorted lenses of another sort.

One other important and hopeful fact to which the Save Darfur crowd remains quite oblivious (perhaps because it doesn't fit anywhere in the debilitating trauma narrative playing out in their minds) is that the political hurdles to be overcome in Darfur for the return of peace are far lower than they were in the conflict in southern Sudan whose genie was put back in the bottle 2 years ago via a devolution of power and regional autonomy agreement and which has mercifully kept passions mostly in check there even after the suspicious death of the popular southern leader, John Garang (there were a few dozen fatalities in rioting in Khartoum after his death in an air crash, but that's a far cry from what happened in similar circumstances in Rwanda, or for that matter in New Delhi, India when Indira Gandhi was assassinated). Nearly two year old comments such as these made by Kenya's Daily Nation newspaper will be news to most folks who cringed at the "chronicle of a genocide foretold" so relentlessly put out by the likes of Nicholas Kristof in NY Times:

With the death of Dr John Garang, the international media will be converging in Sudan for a very rare reason--to highlight something positive they have long ignored: the rebirth of a nation...Though marred by such problems as Darfur, Sudan deserves support to follow the path it has chosen. It is a home-grown solution-finding showcase.

SK: I agree—the Mahmood Mamdani interview is excellent. He thinks “we” (the UN, the parties involved, etc.) must bring the fighting to an end: and not with an external military intervention—but with political settlement. Such seems to be difficult though, with the various sub-factions involved at odds, as I understand the situation (It's difficult enough to help bring only two parties in conflict to resolution). What, and how much, political pressure can be applied, that doesn't have devastating repercussions? (NB in the US it is not a crime not to report a crime: except in cases such as child abuse, etc.—on a micro-“political” level, where we have much more experience, imo, intervention is definitely called for in some cases—but I agree with Mr. Mamdani's thinking that our perceptions can be skewed by prejudice (rape and murder are rape and murder, no matter what the “names” or who the “naming” are—but also, deaths and suffering are deaths and suffering, whatever the cause)). The ten-signatory letter didn't mention military intervention… and maybe Mr. Peterson wouldn't advocate such action by the EU against the “Washington Regime” either. (I'm all for at least forbidding the leaders of the Washington regime their luxury goods, btw). It should be noted that the Iraqi Death number cited above by me could be magnified by a factor of 10 times, if non-violent deaths are included. Quite severe. (Mr. Peterson's point is well taken here).

SK:

Another great find: "The Politics of Naming: Darfur and Iraq," Mordecai Briemberg's interview with Mahmood Mamdani over the Redeye - Vancouver Co-op radio channel.

Invaluable material.  Surpasses by light-years the kind of crap we find in the weblinks I provided above.  Thanks for sharing it.  As always. 

For those of you who do listen to the complete 24-minute interview, and can actually hear it (not a trivial caveat, it goes without saying), don't miss what Mamdani says around the 19:30 mark, where he talks about so many of the emotional tourists who have been "taken for a ride" on this "Crisis in Darfur" bandwagon.  As well as the point he makes around the 22-minute mark, where he says (to paraphrase it closely): The best way to end genocide is not more war, but to bring the war to an end. 

Mamdani's comments near the very end, on the actual, war-fomenting U.S. intervention in Rwanda back in 1994, also are invaluable.

(I refer everyone with an interest in this topic back to "The Politics of Naming," also by Mahmood Mamdani, London Review of Books, March 8.)

And as for "President Bush Visits the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" (White House Office of the Press Secretary, April 18, 2007) -- I can hardly wait to read all about it in Thursday morning's New York Times.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

JoJo, you'd be more likely to understand David's position (or anybody's) if you didn't always impute statements to him that he never made. You do this all the time, with everybody in these blogs. It's really silly, you know. You parody dialectic--if it's not-A, it must be B. David's talking about Q. Monty Python would have done you well. It's hard to believe you take yourself seriously. T

For anyone interested in not "being taken for a ride" by the Save Darfur chorus, this audio interview of an Africa specialist  (and for a change, an African instead of a busybody liberal from the global North) is quite worthwhile. 

I'm not sure how the EU forbidding the “leaders of the [Washington] regime” “our luxury goods” would forestall overly-interventionist US militarism. What would be the effective measures against perceived US imperialism? Unless you're an absolute non-interventionist, I don't see how you could be against raising consciousness for the situation in Darfur. Bob Geldof's assembly of intellectual “rock stars” may focus a little more attention than Mr. Peterson's “Open Letter”—I don't think any of these people are extremely hypocritical, at least on a relative scale—and not everyone has the perfect set of priorities. There are necessarily many problems to bring to the fore of public consciousness: maybe statistics can help to arbitrate the level of catastrophe: (1) ~65,000 Reported Iraqi's civilian deaths over past 4 years (violence related). (2) ~180,000 Deaths in Darfur region in 18 months (including non-violence-related). (3) ~11,000,000 Children die each year from poverty (preventable diseases, etc.). Clearly, all three issues are paramount… who isn't concerned most with the third? Epicurus?

so are you saying the EU shouldn't do anything about Dafur but should do something about Washington D.C.? 

I'm confused over what your position is - intervene in Darfur or don't intervene in Darfur?

 I thought I read in the paper the other day that troops from somewhere are going into back up the African Union troops who have essentially let the killing continue.  Do you think that is good or bad?

I'm not trying to be a smart alex, I'm trying to understand your position.