U.S. Academics’ Rush to Nazify Sudan
Barely a week goes by without a welter of intellectual indulgence (or think of a word that rhymes with vibration) from some more Johnny-Come-Lately American academic “˜experts’ about Sudan.
I live here in El Fasher, North Darfur have traveled the length and breadth of Darfur (and the rest of Sudan), am Sudanese with no political agenda (i.e. the ubiquitous “˜silent majority’), and none of what Daniel Chirot reflects or enters the ‘subjective universe’ i.e. the reality, rather than the academic’s own personal prejudices or views, that informs state and non-state actors in Darfur or elsewhere in Sudan – surely the point of any academic research?
Mr Chirot, riddle me this: if the so-called “˜Sudanese Arab’ elite are wannabe Caucasians as you ludicrously claim (Francis Deng might be big in the UN and the corridors of academia and think tanks in DC and elsewhere in the US and Europe, but he means diddly-squat here – just another professional Sudanese international circuit speaker), then why do “˜Sudanese Arabs’ use the term “˜halabi’ (i.e. light skinned) as a polemical term for somebody lacking character, honesty, and a backbone? In other words as an insult?
Moreover, casually brushing aside US brutalities in Iraq – and the US’s role in providing the weaponry, intelligence, technical know-how, and diplomatic cover for Israel’s recent horrific tearing-up of Gaza as US academics like yourself do and taking some false moral high ground over Darfur without missing a heartbeat – “trivialises the suffering there” (in Gaza and Iraq), does it not? In other words, 100,000s of Iraqis killed and maimed, millions internally and externally displaced, over 600 Gaza kids killed, homes and lives destroyed? That double standard in the US – academia, media and think-tanks – is not a conspiracy as Mr Chirot put it: it’s a reality. Fancy blaming Hamas for the leveling of Gaza or, as Nick Kristoff shamelessly wrote recently, maybe Hamas lured Israel into that destruction as a means to a public relations victory! That’s an astounding statement coming from a self-professed humanitarian and human rights activist, who’s been at pains to write verbatim how his heart has ached for Darfur…..
“Groundless accusations”, Mr. Chirot? Ahem, I beg to differ, e.g. the unprecedented variation in the Darfur death toll 12,000 to 400,000 (Note – the Sudanese government number only includes battlefield deaths – as is standard in any war that doesn’t get sucked into an activist agenda). I could go on, but there are too many falsehoods, stereotypes and half-baked certitudes of US moral authority – let alone Mr Chriot’s truly absurd psychoanalytical babble about the “Sudanese Arab elite”.
I, like most of the silent majority of Sudanese, are just sick-and-tired of attempts by well-meaning, but half-witted, US academics and activists over-hyping Darfur (no, I’m not impervious to the misery or the suffering, I’m here in El Fasher and a Fur by the way), and trying to Nazify “Sudanese Arabs” – whatever that means. It’s just so horrible when an issue gets sucked in by the obsessive, folk devil tendencies of US civil society and government; remember the run-up to the Iraq war, Iran in the ’80s and early ’90s, Libya during the Reagan era, for example?
US academia, plus America’s media, activists and civil society organizations, are clearly (if unwittingly) trying to de-humanise Sudan in the same way Iraq was in the run up to the invasion (though not saying that’s on the cards); e.g. blurring the distinction between the name ‘Sudan’ and its government (i.e. they soon become interchangeable in people’s minds) in the same way that Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq were blurred into one.
Take note of the number of US and other international media reports that have led with ‘Sudan bombs Darfur’, rather than the Sudanese army or government bombs Darfur, which it least paves the way for half-baked, anything goes proposals (no matter how short-sighted they are – witness Tony Obsersschall’s posting last week calling on the international community (read the USA) “to distribute and train villagers with defensive weapons and organize a village militia”) for Darfur. It is truly amazing that somebody clearly as smart as Mr Obserschall can come up with such a convoluted “˜solution’ for Darfur, rather then focus on the blindingly obvious: full and concerted pressure for a comprehensive political solution/intervention/agreement in Darfur.
How long will US academics in particular (and by extension the US administration, and civil society organisations) content themselves with just carry on drawing attention to the situation without mentioning or putting their back into a comprehensive political settlement for Darfur? For example, has anybody seen or heard of any US academic (or Western media organization) demand or write an interview with Djibril Bassole (the UN/African Union mediator for Darfur) to check-in to see how the political process is going? Thought not. How can anybody expect a regular Sudanese like myself to think anything other than that the US and the rest of the West (despite its gnashing of teeth) is not really serious about solving Darfur (through helping to broker a comprehensive peace agreement), but is just using it as an elixir for self-aggrandising moral posturing – especially given their response to Gaza or Somalia (all of which could have the same charge sheet as Darfur).
I suspect that many readers of this blog may shrug their shoulders and say “tough”, no point talking about the double standards and, though unfair, the Sudanese government has to abide by the rules of the game. That’s very difficult, though when one side (read the US, UK, France in particular) is making up the rules as it goes along, and often picks up and takes the ball home (i.e. abandons stuff, e.g. the DPA, save for the US – I’ll concede on that) when things go awry.
So, why does the ball end up being picked up or taken home by the US and other Western nations in conjunction with their sudden changing of the rules of the game? Quite simply because the whole debate in the US and other Western nations about what to do about Darfur (and the resulting international interventions of the last five years) has been conducted over Sudanese peoples’ heads. So, here’s a suggestion: crowd out the shallow US academic activists and regular activists, and crowd-in Sudanese voices who know their country and the way for solutions best (like any other nationals). Simple slogan and a simple demand isn’t it Mr Chirot, Mr Obserschall and others?
Put simply, please, give us Sudanese a break so we can find our own solutions to our own problems and grow the institutions to regulate them!!
The author is a country risk consultant, based in El Fasher, North Darfur, Sudan.
US “activists” are pushing for a commitment to peacemaking, supporting the work of Bassole.
http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/president-obama-immediate-sudan-challenge
“Even while immediate challenge posed by the expected arrest warrant
commands attention, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice would be well served to quickly establish clear policy objectives focused on a real and lasting all-Sudan solution for Darfur, the South, and the rest of this embattled country. While both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice pledged strong action on Darfur during their Senate confirmation hearings last week, the need for a holistic approach to Sudan’s crises could not be greater as deadlines for Sudan’s national elections and other crucial elements of the CPA’s implementation (such as North-South border demarcation) loom large. The Obama administration must make the crucial leap to “connect the dots,†and invest in holistic strategies that will offer long-term solutions to Sudan’s violence.
In her confirmation hearing, Ambassador Rice correctly identified the “root of the problems in Darfur and throughout Sudan†as “the lack of an underlying peace.†Her diagnosis supports the notion that the Obama administration must put peacemaking at the center not only of their Sudan policy agenda, but of a broader effort to reframe the overall approach to U.S relations throughout the Africa. Ensuring that such an approach is implemented and maintained will be key in the weeks and months ahead.Even while immediate challenge posed by the expected arrest warrant commands attention, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice would be well served to quickly establish clear policy objectives focused on a real and lasting all-Sudan solution for Darfur, the South, and the rest of this embattled country. While both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice pledged strong action on Darfur during their Senate confirmation hearings last week, the need for a holistic approach to Sudan’s crises could not be greater as deadlines for Sudan’s national elections and other crucial elements of the CPA’s implementation (such as North-South border demarcation) loom large. The Obama administration must make the crucial leap to “connect the dots,†and invest in holistic strategies that will offer long-term solutions to Sudan’s violence.”
Mr. Adam, thank you for this great post about the Western, and particularly American, hypocrisy.
Killing civilians in Darfur is an awful crime, but so are the killings in Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name only a few. However, the majority of American journalists and academics find ways to justify killing civilians and children by Americans or Israelis.
And if President Bashir is a war criminal, so is George Bush, who tortured thousands and killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I would like to see all those responsible for the crimes committed in Darfur brought to justice, I do not support international justice that goes only after not-so-powerful.
Mr. Adam, thank you for speaking for the Sudanese ‘silent’ majority. Your analysis is absolutely accurate. I submit to you that the notion of a global hierarchy of race (i.e, the ability to subjugate others through R2P or other well-coined ideas because of your racial-intellectual dominance), is not missed by these “misguided” academics. The mechanisms seem to be all-too synchronized to be simply viewed as misguided assessments and journalistic reporting. Opportunists know no limits. Unfortunately for us, hoping is not a luxury. Appealing to westerners by way of reason or force is impossible. We are at the behest of an established (western) civilization with highly sophisticated and established machinery. We Dwarf Sudanese must circumnavigate the Giants through wit, education, and moral resolve and hope the Giants are preoccupied with other matters amongst themselves. Amongst our own circles, we must hope that the tyrants (i.e Islamists) evolve and that our society transforms through dialogue and mutual understanding that we are all Sudanese at the end of the day.
Sam – it’s great that US activists are pushing for peace. Indeed it would be worrying if they weren’t… and it is good to see their recognition that peace is the overriding concern. The trouble is they are also pushing for the extraction of the president to face a genocide and war crimes trial in the Hague.
It is not enough to say they want both peace and justice. We all do. But pretty well all of historical experience shows that these can rarely be achieved together (except perhaps victors’ justice in the few cases where there has been regime change by force). This ‘no peace without justice’ slogan is the expedient and cynical line taken by Ban Ki Moon and most recently by John Sawers, the UK ambassador to the UN. Concealed in the aspirational language is an pretence that both are achievable simultaneously and therefore that no hard choices or difficult compromises need to be faced – ideal for sly diplomats and naive tub-thumping activists that wish to dodge these responsibilities.
But what if they are not both achievable? What if by pursuit of justice, you force the incumbent tyrant into forming a hard-line closed security state? What if you drive them to cling to power at any cost in order to stay out of court? What if the whole of Sudan feels insulted and threatened and you stoke up the flames of religious or nationalist extremism? What if US activists’ and Ambassador Rice’s desire for an all-embracing peace is confounded by the attempt to arrest President Bashir?
There is a simple reason why the North South peace agreement that underpins current stability doesn’t have much to say about justice, despite years of atrocities that were at least as bad as those of Darfur in 2003-4. It would never have been agreed.
The North South agreement contains within it a core deal – an exchange of oil wealth for power and a measure of self-determination, with a mutual recognition that peace was necessary to get at the oil wealth. These negotiating fundamentals are not mirrored in the rest of the country – Darfur has no oil to speak of and no great economic wealth to share with its tormentors in Khartoum. Nevertheless, there are signs of stuttering progress and the country appears to be trying to find a solution…
I agree that a lasting and broad peace is essential, but it will be exceedingly hard to achieve and take much painstaking negotiation to find a Sudanese solution and external encouragement from friends of Sudan. But it will be harder still if the dominant American contribution is support for the attempt to arrest the president. I would have thought that would be obvious to peace-seeking activists and officials alike.
MD
Dear Adam, a well written blog. The point of your blog -as I understood it- is that you are responding on behalf of the Sudanese silent majority to the biased reports of the American media and intelectuals who are trying to Nazify Sudan. Do you think these intelctuals are behind the Darfuri crisis? Waht about the NCP regime? I think you should better address the NCP propoganda and not the American. The conflict is between the NCP and the silent majority that you spoke for. As Sudanese we had full 19 years to get rid of the NCP grip but failed, and we had 9 long years to solve the Darfur issue but it keeps worsening. The harm done to our country American media should not be treated on equall foot to that done by the NCP.
As for the Iraqi and Palestanian crises, may be if a daring Arab dictator filed a case at the ICC the real double standard would appear. But so far it is in the interests of the Arab countries to have such issues on the table and to play the role of the victim to evade addressing their peoples’ concerns.
Dear Davies, you asked [What if you drive them to cling to power at any cost in order to stay out of court?]. I will answer it on the behalf of the silent majority. This regime was clinging to power at all costs throughout its history. We were opressed, tortured, humilated, and deprieved of our basic human rights since 1989. Masses of people fled the country. For the first time in our nation’s history Sudanese took refuge in countries as far as Australia , Newzeland, etc…Fear and hunger were the weapons used by the regime to rule the silent majority. It waged war at the south to increase its grip of power and stopped it when it served that goal. Now the same thing is happening in Darfur the crimes in the region were made to elleminate any opposition to the regime. The cycle will continue on and on, and it is time to break that cycle. Serving justice will loosen that grip. Without pursuing those criminals they wil go on intimidating and supreesing us. Since last July, we felt that we are relieved to some extent. The regime is busy trying to find away out of the ICC indctment. We have only our hunger to deal with, fear was transferred to the other side.
Dear Mr Yousif. Respectfully, I think you misunderstood the point. We silent majority all want to see an end to the injustice that was started since the 1989 coup. However, by intimidating, trying, and forcing the Sudan government to take account its actions and assume responsibility through an internationally sponsored justice-through-trial-guilt-and-punishment program instead of justice-through-consensus-and-reconciliation is a recipe for disaster. It will further GoS’s need to retain a grip on dictatorial power, and as Alex de Waal intimated, abate their aims to retain power through the democratic transition. Let me reiterate, only the GoS can implement Sudan’s democratization transformation with the help of unrelenting internal and external pressure. Let us be clear, the GoS does not initiate programs that promote civil societies. Its history was filled with death and destruction. Neither is it interested in protecting the political security of the entire country in areas that does not concern its existence. It’s chief objective is to retain power for fear of repercussions of the mistakes it has made in the past. In the wake of the collapse of its initial raison-d’etre, GoS faces an existential threat. We Sudanese must find a way to balance GoS’s desire of ruling at all costs with the needs of the Sudanese people. The two can be reconciled and is more necessary in the immediate short term than a full blown western-style democratic Sudan that seeks justice-and-punishment of its oppressors prior to establishing peace. May I dare to say, that I think an interesting comparison can be made with post-apartheid South Africa and Zimbabwe as well as post-genocide Rwanda. There are countless African stories of peace through reconciliation rather than peace through Western justice. Ocampo has let his work get to his ego and his head. He is full of contradictions in marketing his apolitical job-description and approach while presenting politically charged language to audiences that support him.
Dear Ibrahim Adam:
Thanks for posting your perspectives on Nazyfying Sudan. I share much of your frustration here, seeing as Nick Kristoff in the NYT and other bloggers once again continually misrepresent Sudan and Darfur. What is especially frustrating is that the mainstream media in the US–and apparently in Germany,France and UK–refuse to publish letters or articles by Sudan scholars from these countries who have substantial experience, and linguistic expertise. (I can provide references).
Your broad brushstroke about American academics is insufficiently precise: I do agree that most American academics who are NOT Sudan specialists have been misled by the well-orchestrated SAVE DARFUR campaign and its ENOUGH! offshoot to accept the basic premise of “genocide” without ever questioning the sources.
This has created an echo chamber in the US which in turn has influenced politicians who have thus far been shielded from opposing viewpoints,into arguing for “action” which would be as ill-conceived
as Iraq,Iran,Afghanistan,Israel-Palestine,etc. have been, and with equally disastrous consequences for those countries and the US in the end.
On the other side of this ledger are well-known scholars of Sudan in the above-mentioned countries
NONE of whom believe in the “genocide” narrative.
All are incredibly frustrated because the mainstream media do not allow them access, thus far. This does include the BBC, the NYT, the WP, the WSJ and others. Meanwhile, discredited individuals like Eric Reeves, Roger Winter, John Prendergast et al. continue to be quoted.
This brings me to two additional observations:
1.The GoS has done a poor job explaining itself, including its embassies in the affected countries, and 2. many Sudanese expats who wish the NCP regime ill,or to be removed, have followed the well-trodden track of other exiles–Cubans, Iranians,etc-
to badmouth their home government ,but failing to realize that their overseas audiences do not grasp the subtle differences of political parties or forces but hear only “Sudan-bad”.
These problems have persisted for some time; they were prevalent throughout the Numayri years, the govts of Sadiq and even Siwar al-Dhahab. Southern politicians clearly have their own agendas–though not united– as have Darfurians–again, divided–and those who long for return to civilian rule. I see this being played out in front of my eyes in DC where two embassy missions staffed by Southern leaders have competing factional interests. When I saw the JEM leaders last summer, and Abdal-Wahid also, it became quite clear that they had no positive solutions; their only goal was to rid the country of the current rulers. In many ways this is similar to what Isma’il el-Azhari told me in 1965 regarding the Umma Party, or what M.A.Mahgoub and Sadiq had to say vis-a-vis each other in intra-Umma P.
rivalries.
You are absolutely right that the Sudanese silent majority bears the brunt of all this and I hope that you, and all your colleagues from every perspective, continue to make your voices heard.
An excellent article,you give a voice to the silent majority
Let’s call a spade a spade! Just as Bush was condemned for his action in Iraq, so is Bashir guilty in Sudan. The press is already awash with “demonized Israel” over their reckless bombing of Gaza. Israeli’s apparent attempt to kill a fly with the almighty sledge hammer rightly deserved total condemnation. The world trumpeted this as well. Any and every law-abiding citizen of the world will not defend any crazy and blood-letting despot just because of patriotism. And one shouldn’t quickly run off to cite Israeli/Palestine issue just to muddle discussion over babaric acts of a despot. Any despot, either from the illegal invasion of a sovereign power or the annihilation of a people group within a geo-polity, must be condemned regardless of racial, religious, ethnic, or linguistic affinity.
When some politically motivated court issues an arrest warrant for the president of your country on trumped up charges then ofcourse you will oppose them. Bravo I dont see an arrest warrant beeing issued for either the bush administration or the israeli government for the above mentioned crimes do you?