[The second in a series of postings by James North, who has been exploring the issues surrounding the save Darfur campaign]
My guides to Darfur are the opposite of instant experts. Julie Flint has been covering the Sudan since 1992, originally for the British Guardian. Alex de Waal has been on the scene even longer, since the early 1980s at least; he is an original and sometimes provocative thinker. Gerard Prunier has also spent many years studying East Africa; his book The Rwanda Crisis is somewhat academic, but superb. Flint and de Waal have just updated their Darfur: A New History of a Long War, and Prunier’s Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide is also in its second edition.
Both books require dozens of pages simply to introduce all the actors. After a few pages, your head will be swimming with the names of political movements and their acronyms, armed bands, tribes and individual leaders. But that grounding has been necessary for me, because there are more than two sides to this conflict.
Let us start with the government of Sudan, based in Khartoum, the
capital. The president, Omar al-Bashir, has just been indicted for
genocide and war crimes by the International Criminal Court in the
Hague. General al-Bashir seized power in a coup back in 1989, and just
about everyone is astonished that he is still president. He was
regarded as a mediocrity, a front man for Hassan al-Turabi, who is one
of the most fascinating and sinister figures in the Islamic revivalist
movement in the entire Middle East.
al-Bashir and Turabi staged the coup because they had failed at the
ballot box. During its brief democratic interlude (1983-89), Turabi’s
National Islamic Front never got more than about a fifth of the
popular vote. The majority of the Sudanese people are Muslims, and most
of them are observant, but they rejected Turabi’s harsh extremism.
In fact, politics in the Sudan, and in the Middle East, is much more complex and interesting, than in standard Orientalist discourse – which likes to take the dominance of Islamic revivalism as axiomatic. Sudan once had an influential Communist Party; the country’s greatest singer, Mohammed Wardi, was close to it, and he left for exile after the 1989 coup. I can still remember my friend and translator, Kheirallah (who definitely would have voted for Turabi’s party), happily humming along with Wardi’s songs as our Land Rover traveled through the desert back in 1986.
Now here is where one big complication starts. General al-Bashir and Turabi ruled, more or less together, until 1999 – when the puppet somehow outmaneuvered the puppeter, ousted him, and even jailed him for a time. But Turabi was far from finished. He may well be a devout Islamist, but he is even more interested in power – and he was eager to look for alliances anywhere.
So when a rebellion broke out in the neglected western province of Darfur in 2003, Turabi almost certainly supported one of the (at first only) two rebel movements. And just 2 months ago, when that same armed group (the Justice and Equality Movement, or JEM) staged a daring attack in Omdurman, in the heart of the country, al-Bashir arrested Turabi again for suspicion that he was involved.
Let us step back for a minute from the unfamiliar names and try for an analogy. In simplistic terms, the fighting in Darfur is described as a racial progrom; "Arabs" are murdering "black Africans." But here we have Turabi, who is possibly the most prominent "Arab" in the country, backing one group of "black" rebels – and getting arrested for it. It would be as if one of the highest-ranking Nazis, say Joseph Goebbels, had actually helped the heroic Jewish uprising in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 – and been jailed by Hitler.
All my guides accept that the "Arab"/"black" reading of the conflict is not entirely wrong, and they by no means exonerate the Sudanese government from war crimes. But we will continue to use their work to see that applying a Holocaust template to the Sudan is misleading, and can be dangerous.
how many of the arab sudanese are not also black africans?
to make this an arab vs black-african issue is to benefit the state of the jews: arabs bad. israel is in a struggle against arabs. american liberals and american blacks should beware of the evil arabs. side with the embattled little(size of new jersey albeit an ever growing nj) jewish state.
article by david hoile. will look for other writings if can find another computer.
American Christians Gravely Misled on Sudan
by David Hoile
(Thursday, September 11, 2003)
"There is clear, independently-sourced, evidence that American Churches and Christians are being grievously misled with regard to the situation in Sudan. On more than one occasion American church groups such as Servant's Heart have made very serious claims about Sudanese government forces which were subsequently proved untrue. Sudan has been at war, off and on, since 1955."
——————————————————————————–
Introduction
There is clear, independently-sourced, evidence that American Churches and Christians are being grievously misled with regard to the situation in Sudan. On more than one occasion American church groups such as Servant's Heart have made very serious claims about Sudanese government forces which were subsequently proved untrue. Sudan has been at war, off and on, since 1955. It has been a conflict marked by often vicious propaganda. Inaccurate or distorted claims are dangerous at any time. They are particularly regrettable during the current critical phase within the Sudanese peace process. At a time when the focus has been on reconciliation these allegations have focused prejudice, mistrust and hatred regarding Sudan – especially within political and religious constituencies in the United States.
Previously, many of the claims – especially against the Government of Sudan – had been taken at face value by the public and media at large. In so doing they have grotesquely distorted perceptions of Sudanese affairs within the United States. For the first time since the war began, however, there is now an independent mechanism in place able to investigate the allegations that have been levelled at the combatants. As part of the peace process initiated by former Senator John Danforth, the United States Department of State was instrumental in ensuring that both the Government and rebels signed an Agreement to Protect Civilians from Military Attack. This established the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team (CPMT) to investigate any allegations of attacks on civilians. The team was became operational at the end of November 2002. The CPMT is funded by the United States Government, and consists of an international team of experienced professionals serving as monitors. It is headed by a United States army brigadier-general.
The team's executive summaries and full reports can be viewed and downloaded from the CPMT website: link to
Servant's Heart's Allegation Number 1: The Murder of 2000-3000 Civilians in Attacks on Villages
In February 2003, Dennis Bennett, the director of Servant's Heart, made a number of very serious allegations against the Government of Sudan.[1] His organisation, together with the Canadian groups Freedom Quest International and The Voice of the Martyrs, claimed that Sudanese armed forces had massacred between two and three thousand Sudanese civilians in attacks on the villages of Liang, Dengaji, Kawaji and Yawaji in late April 2002. It was claimed that there were fields littered with human remains. These allegations were widely disseminated internationally and especially within the United States.[2] They were cited by groups such as the Ministerial Alliance of Midland, Texas, a coalition of Church groups and individuals in President Bush's hometown.[3] The Ministerial Alliance of Midland, Texas refers to Servant's Heart, Freedom Quest International and The Voice of the Martyrs as "coalition partners".
In their press release these three groups called for "an investigation by the international Civilian Protection and Monitoring Team." [4] The CPMT did just that.
The Findings of the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team
The CPMT conducted two on-site field investigations at the coordinates provided. Interviews with villagers and rebels within these areas.
The CPMT determined that there had been government activity in the area in April 2002, and that approximately 20-30 people had been killed. The CPMT found that "These actions may have occurred in response to actions by the SPLM/A in the killing of two [2] civilians, looting and robbery of cattle and sheep in the Basholi area in early January and February 2002." These were said to be common in the region.
The CPMT found the evidence of 4-5 human remains in one location and another 4-5 remains at another location. It was noted that the latter location had been a battlefield and it was concluded that "It is highly likely that the human remains at this location are those of combatants who fought at this site".
The CPMT stated: "The claim, therefore that up to '2,500 people were killed' has not been substantiated." [5]
The Civilian Protection Monitoring Team made a point of recommending: "That all sources carefully screen future allegations for credibility, source of information, accuracy, and the feasibility of such an allegation being truthful so as to cautiously avoid inflaming the situation and reality on the ground." [6]
Servant's Heart Allegation Number 2: The Murder of 59 Civilians and Burning Alive of a Presbyterian Pastor
In early June 2003, Dennis Bennett and Servant's Heart made further serious allegations against the Sudanese government. He claimed that the Sudanese military had murdered 59 civilians in attacks on ten villages in eastern Upper Nile. Bennett also claimed a Presbyterian pastor, his wife and four children were burned alive by Sudanese soldiers. [7] Servant's Heart also claimed that Sudanese government forces had abducted 16 women and children. These allegations were widely disseminated within the United States and internationally. [8] These allegations were made as improved Sudanese-American relations were being discussed.
The Findings of the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team
The Civilian Protection Monitoring Team conducted on-site field investigations in the areas of the incident from 6-10 June and 12-13 June 2003, collecting evidence and interviewing witnesses in Kosti, Adar, Bolgok, Pagak, Daga Post, Buong, Longochok and its surrounding villages, and Wan Tau. The CPMT "determined the allegation that the [Government of Sudan] lead militias forces launched an attack on 27 May 2003 is unsubstantiated. The claim that 59 persons were killed as a result of this attack is also unsubstantiated. Finally the claim that the [Government of Sudan] abducted 16 persons was also found to be unsubstantiated."
The CPMT interviewed with the representatives of Servant's Heart who had made the allegation. It reported that "The alleger stated that he received the information third hand from Pastor John Wiyul. Neither he, nor Pastor John Wiyul had been to Longochok, Wan Tau or any of the villages that were attacked to verify the details with the remaining residents." [9]
With regard to the death of the Presbyterian pastor, the CPMT concluded that "the body of evidence … strongly suggests that it was the SPLM/A and an element of the Fellata NOT the [Government of Sudan] or its militia that contributed to the death of Pastor Jacob Manyiel as well as indeterminate number of people, the displacement of civilians, and the destruction and looting of civilian property. Although it could not be conclusively proven that the SPLM/A or the Fellata were respectively responsible for all of 59 civilians reported to have been killed, there is eyewitness testimony supporting that each is responsible for an indeterminate number of the deaths." (emphasis added by CPMT). [10]
It was also ascertained that the Pastor's wife and children were alive and well, and that his house had not been burned. Pastor Manyiel had died of gunshot wounds.
The CPMT called on the rebels and their allies to "refrain from targeting or intentionally attacking non-combatants civilians. [Furthermore] they should take all precautions feasible to avoid the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and danger to civilian objects." [11]
Conclusion
The reliability of claims made by Servant's Heart, Freedom Quest International and The Voice of the Martyrs was thus examined by the independent Civilian Protection Monitoring Team for all to see. It was an investigation for which they had all called.
Servant's Heart's claims that between two and three thousand civilians in the Liang, Dengaji, Kawaji and Yawagi areas were murdered by government forces were unfounded. The CPMT were able to find 8-10 human remains, half of which may have been those of soldiers killed in battle.
With regard to its claims about the Longochok area Servant's Heart was wrong on several counts. Any civilians that may have been killed in any attacks on villages in the area were killed by the rebels or nomads – not government forces. Servant's Heart's sensationalist claims that Pastor Manyiel and his family were burned alive by government forces was untrue. Pastor Manyiel was killed by rebels or nomads. His wife and children are alive and well. The Civilian Protection Monitoring Team revealed that Servant's Heart made its very grave accusations on the basis of third-hand claims that it had not taken the trouble to verify.
The fact that the very serious claims about Sudan that Servant's Heart, and others, saw fit to make were subsequently shown to be essentially baseless is disturbing enough. The motivation for such claims has also been questioned. It was reported, for example, that CPMT investigators were privately very critical of the claims made by Servant's Heart. A CPMT member was said to have referred to its claims about Longochok as "a pack of lies" and implied that it had been designed to "derail the peace process in Sudan". [12] It is true that Servant's Heart's allegations – allegations which certainly cast the Khartoum government in a bad light – were made at key phases during the Sudanese peace process, and may have been intentionally designed to adversely effect Sudanese – American relations. [13]
The CPMT's conclusions about the claims made by Servant's Heart, Freedom Quest International and The Voice of the Martyrs can only but call into question many of the previous assertions about Sudan made by these church groups and similar organisations. These have been similar in tone to the discredited claims. [14]
The interest shown by American churches and Christians in the Sudan is very welcome. With this interest, however, comes a clear responsibility to the truth. Propaganda and distortion is the hallmark of any conflict, and particularly civil war. Sudan has been no exception. If the claims made by groups such as Servant's Heart, Freedom Quest International and The Voice of the Martyrs are anything to go by, then American Christian perceptions of the Sudanese situation may well have been distorted.
Peace and reconciliation needs truth and clarity. This must be demanded of those organisations and individuals claiming to inform the outside world about Sudan.
Notes:
[1] "International Team Uncovers Killing Fields in South Sudan", Press Release by Servant's Heart, 6 February 2003. Servant's heart describes itself as "a parachurch organization" funded by "churches of various denomination, families, individuals, and schools in the US and Canada" (See Servant's Heart website: link to
[2] See, for example, "Sudan. Killing Fields Discovered in Southern Sudan", News Article by Zenith News Agency, The Vatican, Italy, 10 February 2003; "Discovery of Mass Graveyard Uncovers Massacre of Christians in Unarmed Villages by Sudanese Army. Christian Agencies Join Together in Calling for International Inquiry", Press Release by Evangelical Alliance Media Consultancy, 11 February 2003; "International Team Uncovers Killing Fields in South Sudan", Persecution Report, Mission Network News, 18 February 2003.
[3] "Open Letter to the Government of Sudan", Ministerial Alliance of Midland Texas, Midland, 7 March 2003.
[4] This claim was clearly designed and timed to influence the Sudan Peace Act. The organisations specifically called upon "the US State Department to include this incident in their Sudan Peace Act-mandated report to Congress on atrocities and war criminals in Southern Sudan." These groups clearly wished to see the punitive clauses of the Sudan Peace Act to be enacted. Drafted towards the end of the Clinton Administration, the Sudan Peace Act encapsulated every negative aspect of the Clinton Administration's policy towards Sudan – a policy described by former President Carter: "The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle [was] US government policy…Any sort of peace effort [was] aborted, basically by policies of the United States…Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government…basically promoted a continuation of the war." "Carter, Others Say US Has Faltered in Africa", "The Boston Globe", 8 December 1999. The grotesquely-misnamed Sudan Peace Act perpetuates these policies. For a detailed critique, see "The 'Sudan Peace Act': Perpetuating Africa's Longest War", The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, June 2001, available at link to
[5] Executive Summary, "The Report Of Investigation: Liang, Dengaji, Kawaji and Yawagi Villages", Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, Khartoum, 19 June 2003.
[6] "The Report Of Investigation: Liang, Dengaji, Kawaji, And Yawagi Villages", Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, Khartoum, 19 June 2003.
[7] "Government of Sudan Military Kills 59 Unarmed Villagers, Watches While Family Burns to Death, Violates Ceasefire While Bush Administration Does Nothing", Press Release by Servant's Heart, 3 June 2003.
[8] See, for example, "Islamists Burn to Death Christian Pastor, Family. Massacre of 59 Came as Sudan Discussed Removal from Terror List", News Article by World Daily Net, 4 June 2003; "Christian Leader Burned to Death with Wife and Four Children", News Article by ANS, 5 June 2003; "Sudan's Islamic Government Continues PersecutingChristians", News Briefing by Christian World News, Christian Broadcasting Network, 13 June 2003; and Nat Hentof, "The Fight Against Genocide and Slavery;Sudan Government Breaks Faith with President Bush", "The Washington Times", 23 June 2003.
[9] "The Report Of Investigation: Longochok Area", Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, Khartoum, 30 June 2003.
[10] Executive Summary, "The Report Of Investigation: Longochok Area", Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, Khartoum, 30 June 2003.
[11] "The Report Of Investigation: Longochok Area", Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, Khartoum, 30 June 2003.
[12] Comments reported in "Three Abductees Killed in Government of Sudan Captivity", Press Release by Servant's Heart, 11 June 2003.
[13] If the aim was to adversely influence perceptions of the government's commitment to the peace process it had its successes. See, for example, the statement made by Baroness Cox, president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, that Servant's Heart's Longochok allegations "raise serious questions about the NIF regime's sincerity of commitment to genuine peace" ("Christian Leader Burned to Death with Wife and Four Children", News Article by ANS, 5 June 2003) and the statement made by Release International, a Christian advocacy group, that they were "the clearest evidence yet that the Sudanese authorities are not serious about the peace talks they are engaged in. That atrocities of this magnitude are occuring in the midst of such negotiations, is pure hypocrisy."
[14] See, for example, "Sudan Jihad Forces Islam on Christians. Women Refusing to Convert Gang-Raped, Mutilated, Says Relief Worker", News Article by World Net Daily, 4 March 2002. The relief worker cited byDennis Bennett.
the mouths that keep opening. sudan and slavery. genocide in darfur.
the genocide is in palestine committed by the state of the jews. the genocide is in iraq committed by the state of the jews dumb dog – usa.
so what to do? pushing the slavery charge didnt work.
hey -
let's put the 'genocide' moniker onto the back of arabs.
Seven Myths Hindering Peace in Darfur
by David Hoile
(Tuesday, November 16, 2004)
"International perceptions of the dynamics of the Darfur conflict, if based on ideas of marginalisation, will jar at least in part with reality. It should also be self-evident that claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing are very serious allegations which can have equally serious consequences. They must be taken seriously and carefully evaluated."
Myth: "a fiction or half-truth"
– The American Heritage Dictionary (1)
Introduction
In February 2003 two armed groups, the 'Justice and Equality Movement' (JEM) and the 'Sudan Liberation Army' (SLA), started a war in Darfur, a region in the west of Sudan. These groups launched attacks on policemen, government garrisons and civilians in the area. Darfur is an ecologically-fragile area and had already seen growing – and often armed – conflict over natural resources between some 80 tribes and ethnic groups loosely divided between nomads and sedentary communities. Many of the rebels appear to have been identified within two or three "African" communities such as the Fur and the Zaghawa tribes. Some of their civilian targets have included tribal leaders and tribesmen from several "Arab" tribes. The systematic murder by the rebels of several hundred policemen and the destruction of over eighty police stations created a security vacuum that has led to an explosion of inter-communal violence. It is clear that a variety of armed groups have been active in Darfur over the past year or so, either as participants in the war or taking advantage of the turmoil the conflict has caused. This has clearly included heavily-armed criminal gangs from both sides of the Chad-Sudan border. The conflict has spiralled out of control and has caused a growing humanitarian crisis. (2) On 19 April 2004, the government and rebels signed a humanitarian ceasefire agreement as a first step towards a lasting peace. In November 2004 the Government and rebel movements extended ceasefire and aid access agreements. (3) The African Union will be providing both a forum for peace talks and ceasefire supervision. It is essential that agreements are honoured, monitored and followed through as the international community attempts both to address the humanitarian aid needs of those hundreds of thousands of civilians who have been displaced by the war and to facilitate a political solution to the conflict. While the ceasefire has been violated from time to time by all parties to the conflict the bulk of events now in focus happened before the April ceasefire.
Darfur presents a very complex situation with very complex problems. As much has been admitted by noted anti-Khartoum critics such as Alex de Waal. (4) While there can be no simple analysis of the conflict, the issue has also been caught up in the inevitable propaganda war invariably associated with all war, and particularly civil war. Simply put, this propaganda war is clouding and distorting international perspectives on Darfur. This in turn is unjustifiably pushing governments into corners and hindering international attempts to negotiate an end to the crisis. Challenging these myths does not in any way downplay the seriousness or the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur or the seriousness of the human rights abuses that have taken place. It has been a human catastrophe. To the contrary, the challenging of these myths serves to provide a clearer picture of the reality of events in Darfur, something that can only make a resolution easier.
Myth 1: THE DARFUR CONFLICT IS BECAUSE OF MARGINALISATION
"The conflict in Darfur has nothing to do with marginalisation or the inequitable distribution of wealth."
– Anti-Government human rights Activist Ghazi Suleiman
Virtually all mainstream media coverage of the Darfur conflict has repeated rebel claims that the rebellion in Darfur began as the result of Khartoum's marginalisation and underdevelopment of Darfur. (5) These claims in turn have influenced international views and what is expected of the Government of Sudan. This media short-hand has, however, been contradicted by reputable, independent observers. For example, Ghazi Suleiman, Sudan's most prominent human rights activist (described by Reuters as "a non-partisan figure who advises senior politicians across the spectrum" (6)) has concluded: "The conflict in Darfur has nothing to do with marginalisation or the inequitable distribution of wealth. Inherently it is a struggle between the two factions of the Sudanese Islamist movement, the (opposition) Popular Congress party and the ruling National Congress (party)". (7) Suleiman is referring to the conflict within the Sudanese Islamist movement following the government's sidelining of the Islamist eminence grise Dr Hasan Turabi, a figure seen as having been an obstacle both to the normalisation of relations with the United States and a peace agreement with southern rebels. The ruling National Congress party split with hard-liners under Turabi forming the Popular Congress party opposing peace or any engagement with Washington. The Justice and Equality Movement, led by Turabi protégé Khalil Ibrahim, is widely recognised as having been created by the Popular Congress, many of whose leaders come from Darfur. JEM insurgents are now also said to be receiving assistance from al- Qaeda. (8) Even a cursory review of development issues in Darfur undermines rebel claims of underdevelopment. Before the present government came to power in 1989, there were only 16 high schools in Darfur: there are presently some 250 schools. In 1989 there were 27,000 students in schools; in 2003 there were more than 440,000. In 1989 there was not a single university in Darfur; there are now three. The number of hospitals in greater Darfur has increased under this government from 3 hospitals in 1988 to 23 hospitals by 2001. Water pump production in greater Darfur has also increased from 1,200,000 cubic meters in 1989 to 3,100,000 cubic meters in 2003. During 2000-2003, the following water projects were implemented in greater Darfur: the installation of 110 deep ground wells, the rehabilitation of 133 ground wells, the building of 43 dykes and 30 dams, the drilling of 842 hand pumps and the rehabilitation of 839 hand pump wells. The total power generation in greater Darfur has risen under this government from 2,300 kilowatts in 1989 to 4,500 kws by 2000. Before 1989 there was not a single airport in Darfur; there are now three. There has been a three-fold increase in paved roads since 1989. And, politically, Darfur is very well represented at all levels of Sudanese society. There are eight ministers from Darfur and four Darfurian state governors. Darfurians are also members of the supreme and constitutional court. Darfurian representation in the National Assembly is second only to the southern states.
Myth 2: GENOCIDE IS TAKING PLACE IN DARFUR
"Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group."
– Médecins Sans Frontières
In September 2004, the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, responding to domestic pressure from conservative and anti-Islamic constituencies, declared that events in Darfur constituted "genocide". This was despite having previously stated two months before events in Darfur did not "meet the tests of the definition of genocide". (9) His September comment, in the lead-up to the US elections, was widely seen as an attempt to divert media attention away from the disastrous events in Iraq. The American record for crying wolf, in the wake of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction fiasco, is clear. Washington's genocide claims have been criticised by well-respected humanitarian groups such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). (10) MSF President Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol subsequently described American claims of genocide in Darfur as "obvious political opportunism". (11) Dr Bradol had previously stated that the use of the term genocide was inappropriate: "Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group. We have received reports of massacres, but not of attempts to specifically eliminate all the members of a group". (12) Dr Mercedes Taty, MSF's deputy emergency director, who worked with 12 expatriate doctors and 300 Sudanese nationals in field hospitals throughout Darfur at the height of the emergency has also warned: "I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict. Not at all. This can be a semantic discussion, but nevertheless, there is no systematic target – targeting one ethnic group or another one. It doesn't mean either that the situation in Sudan isn't extremely serious by itself." (13) Médecins Sans Frontières is an exceptionally credible observer with regard to allegations of genocide for two reasons. Firstly, MSF was amongst the first humanitarian groups to establish a presence in Darfur as the conflict unfolded. MSF is very heavily involved in the provision of medical and emergency services in all three of the states that make up Darfur, deploying two thousand staff. (14) It has been actively assisting 250,000 people displaced by fighting throughout the region. Secondly, MSF's reputation is quite simply beyond reproach. Médecins Sans Frontières was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999. It has also received numerous other awards recognising its outstanding humanitarian work throughout the world.
Myth 3: THE GOVERNMENT IS DENYING AID ACCESS TO DARFUR
"It is strange to see that there is still the notion…that…we're completely blocked from accessing Darfur"
– UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mr Jan Egeland
There have been attempts to claim that the Government has been systematically denying humanitarian access to Darfur. The facts speak for themselves. In less than twelve months the Sudanese government has agreed and facilitated an increase in aid workers present in Darfur, from two foreigners and a few dozen nationals in September 2003 to just under six thousand aid workers – over seven hundred of them expatriates – by August 2004. (15) On 6 July 2004 the government issued fifteen decrees which addressed, amongst other things, the easing of aid and relief access to Darfur. In total, there are now 155 locations assisting with internally displaced people in the three Darfur states, and the World Food Programme is present in 136 of these centres. (16) There are now dozens of international and national non-governmental organisations working in Darfur. Speaking in June 2004, the outgoing UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Mr Kevin Kennedy, confirmed that visas were generally being granted within 48 hours – as promised by the Government of Sudan – and that "people are experiencing very few visa difficulties". (17) The United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr Jan Egeland, speaking in July 2004, noted: "It is strange to see that there is still the notion in the world that nothing is happening and we're completely blocked from accessing Darfur. We are reaching some 800,000 people at the moment with some sort of assistance and food." (18) By September 2004, the World Food Programme was feeding some 940,000 conflict-affected people in Darfur. (19) The presence of several thousand aid workers in Darfur provides clear evidence of the Khartoum government's commitment to the provision of food and medical relief to Darfur's war-affected communities.
Myth 4: THE DARFUR CONFLICT IS RACIAL
"Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African Muslims – just like Darfur's non-Arabs."
– Anti-Government human rights activist Alex de Waal
One of the other sensationalist themes is that the conflict in Darfur has been a racial one in which light-skinned "Arab" tribes have been engaged in the "ethnic cleansing" of black "African" tribes. (20) These sorts of claims are particularly inflammatory and very questionable. The simple fact is that there is very little, if any, racial difference between the many tribes of Darfur, "Arab" or "African". Both communities are black. The London Observer newspaper has reported, for example, that "[c]enturies of intermarriage has rendered the two groups physically indistinguishable". (21) The UN media service noted: "In Darfur, where the vast majority of people are Muslim and Arabic-speaking, the distinction between 'Arab' and 'African' is more cultural than racial." (22) This reality has been confirmed by prominent anti-government critics such as John Ryle and Alex de Waal. (23) Ryle has noted that Arabs and non-Arabs "are generally physically indistinguishable". (24) Alex de Waal has stated that "Characterizing the Darfur war as 'Arabs' versus 'Africans' obscures the reality. Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African Muslims – just like Darfur's non-Arabs." (25) The New York Times has exemplified contradictory reporting on this issue, with articles on one hand by their columnist Nicholas Kristof alleging, for example, that "black Africans have been driven from their homes by lighter-skinned Arabs in the Janjaweed" (26) while also publishing subsequent articles such as "In Sudan, No Clear Difference Between Arab and African". (27) Even "African" Darfurian anti-government figures such as Dr Eltigani Ateem Seisi contradict the dangerously lazy shorthand of the New York Times. Speaking at a conference in Brussels he stated with reference to "Arabs" and "Africans" in Darfur that "we all look alike" and that one "can't tell from the features if he is Arab or African". He added that he, an "African", had a lighter skin than many "Arabs". (28)
Myth 5: THERE IS A POLICY OF ETHNIC CLEANSING IN DARFUR
"there is no systematic target – targeting one ethnic group or another one."
– Médecins Sans Frontières
There has obviously been a vast displacement of civilians within Darfur. A sensationalist media and human rights industry has claimed that the government has pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. (29) We have already seen the Médecins Sans Frontières observation that "there is no systematic target – targeting one ethnic group or another one". The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr Egeland, has also stated that the term "ethnic cleansing" did not fit events in Darfur: "I think we have more reports actually of a kind of scorched earth [policy] – and that nobody has taken over….It's complex, because some have said that it doesn't fit the legal definition of ethnic cleansing. The same tribes are represented both among those who are cleansed and those who are cleansing." (30) Mr Egeland's views have been echoed by key human rights experts. Asma Jehangir, the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial summary and arbitrary executions, for example, has said: "I wouldn't categorise as ethnic cleansing at the moment because that is not the impression that I am getting. It could be an unintended purpose but the numbers are staggering, the situation is terrible." (31) Allegations of ethnic cleansing have also been clearly contradicted by Sudanese government actions. Far from wishing to see the displacement of "African" Darfurian communities, the government has self-evidently been very eager to see these communities returned to their homes. In October 2004, Khartoum reported to the UN that 70,000 displaced people had been returned to their places of origin. (32) Jan Pronk, the UN Special Envoy to Sudan, was said to be concerned because neither the UN High Commissioner for Refugees nor the UN Organisation for Migration had been consulted prior to the repatriation. While there may well be some concern as to whether all the returns were voluntary Khartoum's eagerness to return refugees to their place of origin is manifest.
Myth 6: THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE "JANJAWEED"
"[the Janjaweed are] a monster that nobody seems to be able to control."
– UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mr Jan Egeland
The myth that the government controls the "Janjaweed", the gunmen and bandits that have been associated with much of the violence in Darfur, and can turn their activities off and on like a tap has also distorted the reality of events. Part of the problem has been defining the term "Janjaweed". A sensationalist media has lumped together as "Janjaweed" regular army forces, popular defence forces, police units, tribal militias, armed robbers through to any armed "Arab" tribesman. Virtually all of Darfur's 80 tribes will have members who are armed, some with members on both sides of the conflict. Some tribal militias will not disarm unless rival tribes also do so. A western diplomat in Khartoum has noted: "There are many gangs or groups that (the Sudanese government) doesn't control or who may be partly under their control or controlled by the local authorities. So this is not a clear-cut picture. That makes you understand how difficult (disarmament) is logistically." (33) According to the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mr Jan Egeland "There are many armed groups and many armed criminal gangs in Darfur." He referred to the Janjaweed as "a monster that nobody seems to be able to control". (34)
Myth 7: ALL MILITIAS IN DARFUR CAN BE DISARMED IN 30 DAYS
"This is going to take, in my view, 18 months to two years to conclude the first phase"
– US State Department official Charles Snyder
Unrealistic expectations based upon naïve and often propagandistic claims have blighted a resolution of the problem. One issue has been the problem of disarming the many armed groups and individuals in Darfur. In July 2004, for example, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution threatening action against Sudan if it did not disarm gunmen in Darfur within 30 days. (35) Charles Snyder, a former acting assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and the State Department's senior representative on Sudan, has stated, however, that there are no "30-day, 90-day quick fixes" to the problem. He also admitted: "This is going to take, in my view, 18 months to two years to conclude the first phase" of making the region safe for people to return to their homes. (36) Clearly, every effort must be made to both remove weapons and the motivation or need to carry weapons from the Darfur situation. Increasingly shrill demands for an immediate disarmament of armed forces within Darfur in the face of the reality outlined by Mr Snyder serve no purpose other than enflaming an already fraught situation.
Conclusion
Why do these myths hinder peace in Darfur? The sorts of disinformation, misinformation and sensationalism outlined above only further complicate an already complicated situation. It is very difficult, for example, to end a conflict said to be about marginalisation and underdevelopment when at least one of major participants would appear to have a hidden agenda of overthrowing the Government of Sudan and replacing it with a more hard-line Islamist regime. Building schools and roads and drilling more water wells in Darfur, while doubtlessly useful, is not going to satisfy hard-line Islamist rebels in Darfur any more than reconstruction projects in Iraq have satisfied Islamist insurgents in that country. International perceptions of the dynamics of the Darfur conflict, if based on ideas of marginalisation, will jar at least in part with reality. It should also be self-evident that claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing are very serious allegations which can have equally serious consequences. They must be taken seriously and carefully evaluated. Given that respected and credible observers such as Médecins Sans Frontières have gone out of their way to challenge allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur, the claims must therefore be treated with considerable caution. These sorts of claims merely serve to confuse issues and push western governments into short-term measures – actions that are ill-thought-out and which will only escalate the crisis. "
"All my guides accept that the "Arab"/"black" reading of the conflict is not entirely wrong" (J North)
Myth 4: THE DARFUR CONFLICT IS RACIAL (repeat from above post)
"Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African Muslims – just like Darfur's non-Arabs."
– Anti-Government human rights activist Alex de Waal
One of the other sensationalist themes is that the conflict in Darfur has been a racial one in which light-skinned "Arab" tribes have been engaged in the "ethnic cleansing" of black "African" tribes. (20) These sorts of claims are particularly inflammatory and very questionable. The simple fact is that there is very little, if any, racial difference between the many tribes of Darfur, "Arab" or "African". Both communities are black. The London Observer newspaper has reported, for example, that "[c]enturies of intermarriage has rendered the two groups physically indistinguishable". (21) The UN media service noted: "In Darfur, where the vast majority of people are Muslim and Arabic-speaking, the distinction between 'Arab' and 'African' is more cultural than racial." (22) This reality has been confirmed by prominent anti-government critics such as John Ryle and Alex de Waal. (23) Ryle has noted that Arabs and non-Arabs "are generally physically indistinguishable". (24) Alex de Waal has stated that "Characterizing the Darfur war as 'Arabs' versus 'Africans' obscures the reality. Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African Muslims – just like Darfur's non-Arabs." (25) The New York Times has exemplified contradictory reporting on this issue, with articles on one hand by their columnist Nicholas Kristof alleging, for example, that "black Africans have been driven from their homes by lighter-skinned Arabs in the Janjaweed" (26) while also publishing subsequent articles such as "In Sudan, No Clear Difference Between Arab and African". (27) Even "African" Darfurian anti-government figures such as Dr Eltigani Ateem Seisi contradict the dangerously lazy shorthand of the New York Times. Speaking at a conference in Brussels he stated with reference to "Arabs" and "Africans" in Darfur that "we all look alike" and that one "can't tell from the features if he is Arab or African". He added that he, an "African", had a lighter skin than many "Arabs". (28)
There are two issues:
What is really happening in Darfur?
What is the intention of Darfur activists?
Gary Zatzman and Rafiqul Islam address the subject of intention — mostly in a context where intention is not supposed to matter at all — in The Economics of Intangibles.
your sooo boring…get rid of it… and im here to bomb you… in 2 days you will wake up and when it hits to 12:00 your house will be bomb until you get rid of this