Another in the series, How to Think About Darfur, by James North
The New Republic has a long cover article on Darfur, along with a shorter piece by editor-in-chief Martin Peretz. For Peretz, Darfur is black and white:
"Even if not in numbers, the Darfur genocide is of the same order of moral magnitude as the shoah. It will haunt us in whatever day of judgment we face, and it will haunt us when civil and civilized people at last come to bring some just order to the world, including the moment when some court renders justice."
The main article, by deputy editor Richard Just, is slightly more nuanced, but he still insists that "the genocide continues to this day." He is unclear about a solution. He suggests that the invasion of Iraq prevented NATO from also intervening in Sudan, and he does recognize that the reality in Darfur has changed over the last few years. And in the end, he has enough integrity to balk at sending American or European troops now. But he therefore has nothing concrete to offer-- other than to flagellate Western governments for not acting some years ago.
As I have noted, the Khartoum regime committed its worst crimes in Darfur in 2003-04, after two rebel movements launched attacks. But much has changed since then. The two rebel groups splintered, and one of the larger fragments is led by an odious young man named Minni Minawi, who could probably be tried for war crimes himself.
Darfur has turned into a free-for-all. The respected International Crisis Group reports, "In just a few years, the Darfur situation has evolved from a rebellion with defined political aims and a clear set of actors, into a conflict increasingly marred by shifting alliances, regional meddling and a growing complex tribal dimension."
The "Arabs" versus "Africans" interpretation, never entirely valid, is
now even more muddied. The Crisis Group explains, "Dissent is also
growing among Darfur’s Arab tribes, leading to new alliances with
non-Arab groups, and sparking clashes between and within Arab tribes
and Arab-led groups."
The commander of the small United Nations-African Union observer mission in Darfur (UNAMID), a Nigerian general named Martin Luther Agwai, blames the rebels for not reunifying, and coming to the conference table.
"I am not in any way saying that the (Khartoum) government is clean,"
General Agwai explained. "But what I am saying is that also the other
side cannot be said to be saints. So my appeal is that the pressure
should be exerted on both sides."
I said earlier that if I lived in Darfur in 2002-03, I think I would have supported the Sudan Liberation Army, the larger of the two original rebel groups. I am not a pacifist, but the older I get (mid-50s now), the more I understand the valuable insights of pacifism. If you take up violence, even in a just cause like Darfur, you inevitably add to the overall level of violence, with consequences that you cannot predict, which may last for years, decades or even longer. Your solution may turn out to be even worse than your original problem.
But is there a solution, aside from blaming "Arabs," calling a complex situation "genocide," and wailing over the fact that the West did nothing 5 years ago? We will see.
"So my appeal is that the pressure should be exerted on both sides."
Rings a bell. How are those two boats bringing medical supplies to Gaza doing? Have the Liberty and Free Gaza been grounded yes because they are pirates, or because the democratically elected Palestnians have given the Israel navy watery jurisdiction, and/or Israel has declared the boat's course a war zone? Strange, I can't find anything about it on the news channels.
It is useful, from a Zionist perspective,
to blame a conflict involving black Africans
on the "Arabs"; it is also useful to dwell
on the suffering in Darfur in order to distract the world's attention from the
plight of those trapped in Gaza.
Dear mondo – i love your blog, and follow it regularly; i 've been intrigued by the darfur discussion – i want to highly recommend this article about the politics of the darfur campaign in the US – very interesting: link to merip.org
/>
We met with Dr. Samina Khan of Tufts on Aug. 10 at our house for an update on Darfur. As far as she can tell the crisis is for the most part over for the Darfuran. Here is a short report: Sun. Aug. 10 Darfur Meeting Report.
When David refers to the NGO industry in Darfur, he is trying to describe the "American NGO complex" that Dr. Khan saw under construction in El Fasher. It seems to include Pizza Hut and will grow to include all the usual mall culture.
The following passage from Israel Advocacy Organizations Change Tactics includes a hyperlink to an article in which Peretz tries to blame Arabs and Muslims for all wrongs in the world.
The first significant claim that genocide was occurring in Darfur came out of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, a clear zionist organization. Then Powell foolishly repeated the charge. It is Israels stated foreign policy objective to fragment Arab governments as much as possible. They succeeded brilliantly in Iraq and, ironically, that success has made it impossible to use US troops to dismantle Sudan.
"Even if not in numbers, the Darfur genocide is of the same order of moral magnitude as the shoah"
5 million dead in Congo because of the wars that still flare up there. That IS on the same magnitude in number, yet no one mentions it. Not even Philip Weiss, who thinks of himself as thoughtful and against the grain. Darfur is far more fashionable.
James North responds: Laurence, thanks for your comment. Phil isn't writing these posts on Darfur; I am. You are absolutely right to mention the deaths in the Congo, and I will have plenty to say about them — and the U.S. government's indirect reponsibility — shortly.
It's more like 6 million dead in the Congo by now, but it's not as if Arabs are killing them, so where's the propaganda value? Why bother even reporting that over 1000 a day are dying. They're only Africans after all.
And who's to blame for 6 million dead?
link to dissidentvoice.org
What wonderful symmetry.