The third in a series on How to Think About Darfur, by James North:
Barack Obama’s big speech in Berlin was generally short on specifics, but he mentioned Darfur twice. He called the conflict "genocide" and later said, "never again." He thereby endorsed the Holocaust Template to understand the conflict in the Sudan, but this has not always been a helpful frame of analysis.
Take, for instance, the Sudan’s government’s announcement two weeks ago that it has appointed a high level committee to counter the International Criminal Court’s accusation of genocide against president Omar al-Bashir. The defense committee will be headed by Salva Kiir, the first deputy president, who is theoretically the second-most powerful man in the country.
Anyone who stopped paying attention to the Sudan a few years ago would be flabbergasted at this choice. Salva Kiir is also the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, which until 2005 was waging a several-decades long war to win greater autonomy, and possible independence, for southern Sudan from the regime in Khartoum.
The southern Sudanese struggle is the longest conflict on the African continent, and it actually fits the "Arabs" against "Africans" pattern (which I described in an earlier post) better than the more recent fighting in the western province of Darfur. Sudan, Africa’s largest country, is 1200 miles from north to south. British colonialism joined millions of "Africans," who practiced Christianity or traditional African religions, to the "Arab" Muslims of the north. Fighting broke out at independence in 1956, and has continued, almost without interruption, since then. During the latest phase of the conflict (1983-2005), nearly two million people died.
But three years ago, partly due to pressure from the West, the warring sides signed a fragile peace treaty and formed a government of national unity. The truce has held despite occasional clashes. And southern Sudanese will have the right to choose independence in a 2011 referendum.
I wish I could read Salva Kiir’s mind. President Omar al-Bashir ordered the bombing raids and the military attacks that killed so many of Kiir's fellow southern Sudanese. At the same time, he recognizes that al-Bashir is a canny political survivor, who is apparently prepared to finally let southern Sudan go so he can preserve his own power over the rest of the country. Kiir may well feel that if you haul al-Bashir off to the Hague to face the International Criminal Court, the peace deal could unravel, and hundreds of thousands more could die in renewed fighting.
If we really wanted to apply the Holocaust Template, the analogy would go like this: in 1938, Chancellor Adolf Hitler appoints his number two – a Jewish leader of the Social Democratic party, with whom Hitler governs in uneasy coalition – to defend him before the League of Nations. The impossibility of this scenario shows us that the Holocaust Template does not help us much in understanding Sudan today.
P.S. The Times touched on some of these issues re Sudan yesterday. Mike Desch has written of the misuse of the Holocaust analogy in Middle East policy in this important paper.
The best thing I read about Darfur was an article a few months ago in the London Review of Books. The writer made the point that liberals convinced of the idiocy of the Iraq invasion are also convinced that "the west" should go into Darfur. His point is that we knew little about internal Iraqi politics back in 2002. We in the west know just as little about the Sudan today.
Thinking we understand countries just because we read a few articles in the NY Times or saw something on Sixty Minutes is hubris. Hubris got us into Iraq. Let us realize how much we don't know before we decide to send in the troops.
I'm just not impressed. James' brother Peter is much more convincing when he lets loose on the page, and when he does so he goes on much longer than most others.
Look him up, he's on the web too.
Was James the brother of Jesus perhaps?
The Letter of James is an uplifting part of the New Testament.
It may be dropped at any times from the New Testament. So much for a good one. It will not survive in the Holy Scripture.
My guide on Christianity is the only Geza Vermes.
My reason for rejecting Obama is his intellectual poverty.
He and his handlers are an insult to intelligence. I guess, I am not alone.
The Anonymous above is not monkey me.
The London Review article is an excellent resource for those interested in Darfur politics.
It probably is also relevant that the charge of genocide gained traction when the Washington Holocaust Museum made the accusation against Sudan. I would guess that the neocons and their Zionist backers pushed them into that declaration.
The Darfur rebellion is basically a civil war that could possibly result in the dissolution of the existing state of Sudan. A Moslem state that is hostile to Israel. Isn't it only natural for Israel to try to fragment that state? They, ie Israel and their American backers, have certainly succeeded in fragmenting Iraq into probably three states or autonomous zones.
I cannot criticize Israel for advocating the fragmentation of Moslem and Arab states — such divisions will make it easier for them to fight their enemies. It is obviously in their interests to divide their enemies. But it is not in the intersts of the US. Unless, of course, we define our interests as Israel's interests.
There is more ethnically defined and ethnically motivated mass murder to the point of genocide in Darfur, than there is in Palestine.
In Palestine, there is suppression and persistent ethnic separation/cleansing.
In Darfur, there is mass murder on the scale of thousands.
While the exact parallel between nazi Germany and Darfur is innaccurate (history NEVER repeats), the term genocide is likely accurate relative to Darfur.
Its UPSETTING, to watch you join the rationalization that what is occurring in Darfur is not significant, because some of the people involved have different political combinations of concerns than you.
Richard: Thanks for your comment. I will be responding to you in my upcoming posts on Darfur. James North
I just recognize that I know very little about Darfur. I think it is dangerous for us so far away to be urging our govt to get involved when we do not recognize that our ignorance about Darfur far exceeds our knowledge.
If we as a nation recognized how much we didn't know about Iraq, we would never have invaded.
That said, it does seem that pastoralist tribes are indeed slaughtering more sedentary tribes. That this is wrong is unarguable, that we should get involved much more questionable.
great blog – this article about the racial politics of the save
darfur campaign came out a couple of year ago – and is the best
thing i've read about the darfur/holocaust template
Slavery, Genocide and the Politics of Outrage: Understanding the New
“Racial Olympics”
Thanks for the confirmation pw. The Darfur issue is being pushed by the zionists. To get the rest of the world and the US involved there would help Israel.
The reason that I am concerned about Israel is not because Israel is so bad, but because the US is bankrolling her actions to our detriment. We have no responsibility for what is going on in Darfur and it is not in our interests to get involved.
great entry on the racial politics driving the darfur campaign – i totally agree — this article is the best on the subject and on how 9/11 changed the american racial landascape:
Slavery, Genocide and the Politics of Outrage: Understanding the New “Racial Olympics”
Mexicans have no Jew Guilt.