Tragedy of a People under Attack: Who is Responsible for the Failure?
Recently, two authors have published an interesting, thoughtful book titled The Scramble for Africa: Darfur””Intervention and the USA. The two authors of this book, Steven Fake and Kevin Funk, deeply analyze issues of particular significance, not only to the US public and foreign policy but also to the entire world. The foreign policy of the United States, for instance, affects almost every and each of us because of the role the US plays on the world political scene. In addition, this book derives its significance from throwing light on a cutting edge issue in international law and international relations i.e. humanitarian intervention. The book falls in nine chapters or parts. It is full of historical and current information that gives a clear 
background to the US involvement in Sudan, but also Africa in general. The most important point that the authors make is that the situation in Darfur illustrates our failure to turn rhetoric into concrete actions.
The Scramble for Africa traces, critiques, and analyzes not only the history of the US foreign policy and humanitarian intervention but also the history and the root causes of the Darfur crisis. In this regard, the book, to mention one example, discusses the role of Al Sadig Al Mahdi, the leader of the Umma Party of Sudan, in creating and supporting the Janjaweed militia when he in 1987 appointed Fadlalla Burma Nasir, the mastermind of the Baggara militia that fought against South Sudan, to a post in the Ministry of Defense. One could make a couple of comments on some of the Darfur/Sudan-related issues or points raised by the two authors.
The first is the genocide issue. Whenever the situation in Darfur is mentioned, the genocide debate, no wonder, arises. In this book, the authors excellently explain the possibility of establishing the dolus specialis (the special intent) to commit genocide in Darfur’s particular case. They explain that there are many factors, such as the concentration of attacks on certain ethnic communities, which could be depended upon to establish the dolus specialis. The authors, however, hint that the fact that most Darfurians were forced to leave their land demonstrates the intention was to clear the land, but not to eliminate the people. I think that many authors are distracted by this fact””the fact that many Darfuris were able to make their way out of the pogroms””from the intent of the genocidaire. There is no doubt establishing the mens rea and dolus specialis as lawyers very well know is not an easy task. In most of the cases, the criminal intention of the criminal or the suspect overlaps with other intentions that might completely change the classification of the crime or at least lessen the punishment that could be meted out. When it comes to genocide, it is always possible to claim that the intention was anything but not to kill in whole or in part a group for it is ethnical, racial, national, or religious background, as such. For example in the Rwandan case, it is possible to ask whether the Tutsis were being wiped out only because they were a distinct ethnic group or because they were a political power.
On the other hand, that many of the targeted, religions, ethnical, racial, or national groups could escape and even find a safe haven in areas controlled by the orchestrators of genocide is not a sufficient reason or justification to argue that the dolus specialis is not there. Here again, to go back to the Rwandan example, many of the Tutsis were able to escape the organized killing. Genocidaires are not stupid to the extent that they would make evidence of their intention to kill that obvious. Criminal law lawyers know and understand that criminals always do their utmost to erase any sign that would indicate a crime was committed or that a certain person or persons committed a certain crime. Political and military organizations are no doubt much more adept at ensuring that their intention is not clear. As far as the direct perpetrators of atrocity violations in Darfur is concerned, my positions has always been that the dolus specialis can be derived from the magnitude of the violations, the political agendas of the perpetrators, and the context of the conflict.
It should be noted that the dolus specialis is required to hold direct perpetrators responsible. However, the indirect perpetrators and states can be held responsible once the intention of the direct perpetrators is established. The Genocide Convention of 1948 does not speak about the special intent of states. It, instead, speaks about complicity, abetment, attempt, and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. In point of fact, article III of the Convention aims at equating the acts of genocide mentioned in article II to those detailed in article III. In addition to this, under general principles of international law, the responsibility of the state can always be established as long as the intention of the direct perpetrators is established. Only the establishment of the relationship between the state and the wrongdoers is required.
The authors also shed light on the role of the Bush administration in addressing the Darfur situation. History will tell that President Bush had paid the Darfur crisis sufficient attention, had the presidents of the other countries had the same determination to put an end to the Darfur crisis, the situation would have been completely different by the end of his second term. I believe that President Bush and human rights advocacy groups could not succeed in stopping the violations and end the crisis once and for all because of the deficiencies of the international institutions that are responsible for dealing with crises and massive human rights violations. The Save Darfur Coalition for instance has been exerting enormous efforts to end or at least help diminish the suffering of the innocent civilians of Darfur, but the decision could only be made by the diplomats of the United Nations. There are indeed many individuals and institutions to be blamed for inaction. The Save Darfur Coalition is not one of them as it is just an advocacy group. Neither is President George Bush. Both have done all what they could to raise awareness and, within the limits of their powers, they took practical steps to pressure the Khartoum-based government to change its behavior. As the authors themselves mention in the book in a different context, it was the Bush administration that played a crucial role in putting the Darfur crisis on the top of the world agenda.
The authors, citing Professor Mahmood Mamdani, argue that the US and other international powers are paying attention to the Darfur crisis while ignoring others such as the Congolese one for geopolitical interests. The rise of the Darfur crisis is related to several factors the most important of which is the direct involvement of the state, which is responsible for security, in the destruction and slaughtering operations against innocent Darfurian civilians. Here I would like to refer to an interesting article, “the crisis where? Why some world trouble spots get all the attention,” by Joshua Kurlantzick (Boston Globe, July 19, 2009). In his article, Kurlantzick, comparing between the Xinjiang province of western China and Tibet, details the reasons that help some causes get more attention than others. Having a charismatic influential leader like the Dalai Lama, powerful or organized émigré communities in the West to publicize a cause and donate money, familiarity with the West, and attraction of celebrities’ attention are the common factors that help some causes get more attention than others. Even proficiency of English, the world’s most widely spoken language, Kurlantzick argues in his article, helps in attracting attention. He adds that the limitedness of the resources in the era of a global economic crisis enforces rich nations to focus their efforts on the most acute problems or the most solvable ones. In addition, there are too many crises to address today.
Regarding Darfur, which is no exception to what Kurlantzick mentions, thousands of Darfurian and Sudanese political and human rights activists immigrated to the United States and the United Kingdom many years ago. Prominent political leaders such as Ahmed Ibrahim Diriage, Dr. Sharif Harir, and Dr. El Tigani Seisie, to mention three persons only, left Sudan in search of opportunities to promote the cause of Darfur. Even before the war started, the three of them and many others were campaigning and organizing. Some Darfurians and Sudanese in general in the Diaspora have established social and human rights organizations and associations. These organizations and associations played a significant role in pushing forward the cause of Darfur. One of the Sudanese groups that have played a central role is the Southern Sudanese communities in the United States. They went through the same tragic plight. That is why their reaction was very fast, timely, and strong. From day one, they were on the side of the cause of Darfur. They were already in touch with many advocacy groups. The late Dr. John Garang devoted a lot of his time and effort using his international relations and powerful connections to attract attention to Darfur’s crisis. Another circle of Sudanese that actively mobilized advocacy groups and policymakers in the West has been the Sudanese who were enforced to leave Sudan in the aftermath of the 1989 coup d’état. Some of them have established Sudanese human rights organizations in London and elsewhere. Before leaving Sudan, many of them were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and dismissed from their jobs, some even lost family members. This is in addition to many Darfurians who have lived in the US for 15 years and more. In Maine in the United States, I met a Darfurian who told me that he used to spend the whole night making calls and sending out e-mails to raise thousands of US dollars from Darfurians in the US for Darfur. The birth of the Save Darfur movement was simply a practical response to the call by the Sudanese, the Darfurians, and the human rights activists from all over the world to do something. Save Darfur founders have chosen to act and advocate at a time when those who criticize it were, as they are today, silent and sitting by.
As far as geopolitical and other interests of some countries are concerned, I would like to mention here that Khartoum has always been ready to give the United States opportunities to explore and exploit oil in Sudan provided that Washington stops its pressure. Furthermore, high profile Sudanese government officials visited Paris last April and met with the Foreign Minister of France in a bid to normalize relations with Paris. The objective was to secure that France eases its position vis-í -vis the ICC indictment of the Darfur war crimes suspects. They also wanted France to expel the Chairperson of a Sudan Liberation Movement faction, Abdulwahid El Nur, who lives in exile in Paris. Khartoum does all this, instead of solving the real problems that bring international pressure from Paris and Washington. It does not want to normalize relations with the suffering and vulnerable people of Darfur, but wants to do everything it can to normalize relations with powerful nations for purely opportunistic objectives. In international politics, it is quite understandable to adopt and follow a pragmatic foreign policy that secures political and economic interests for your nation. What is not understandable, though, is to seek normalization of relations with other countries and gaining of interests against your own people.
Discussing the causes of the Darfur conflict, the authors touch on the role of the split of the Islamist movement in Sudan. Citing Alex de Waal, they argue that most commentaries’ inability to observe the fact that the split of the Islamists was one of the reasons responsible for the breakout of the war “is another distortion amenable to those who wish to demonize Islam for Western audiences-no small category.” I do agree with the authors that the divide of the Islamists has played some role in the war in Darfur. But it was not the main factor, and that is probably why many activists, Sudanese and non-Sudanese, did not observe the role of this factor. In fact, the Sudan Liberation Movement was the largest and most powerful rebel organization before its fragmentation that started in 2005. It was and is still the most popular rebel organization there. The root causes of the Darfur crisis have been there even when the current leading members of the Justice and Equality Movement were part of the Sudanese government. If there is anyone who wishes to demonize Islam in the context of the Darfur conflict, it is the Sudanese government and its barbarous Janjaweed militia that kill innocent Darfurian Muslims in the name of Islam and Arab nationalism. Therefore, I think it is both misleading and wrong to make statements that Darfur activist and advocacy groups have any intention to demonize Islam.
The authors also critique the efforts of the international community to address the insecurity situation in Darfur. In this context, they criticize the reluctance of many Western countries to equip the United Nations-African Union hybrid operation in Darfur (UNAMID). They admit that both the Sudanese government and the African Union objected to the idea of sending a purely UN force to Darfur. From my perspective, there are two reasons why some Western countries are not willing to support UNAMID. The first is that there is no peace to be kept in the first place. The second is that states and activists that suggested the idea of sending international troops instead of hybrid ones realized from the very beginning the hybrid force would not make a different on the ground. This was the same reason that made the Sudanese government reluctantly endorse the hybrid force. If I were a president of a powerful state, I would only support workable projects and reliable peace forces. Besides its ineffectiveness for whatever reason, UNAMID, as a recent report by the Small Arms Survey demonstrates (see p. 17, bullet point 8), has become a source of stolen weapons for the militias in Darfur, which means the more advanced weapons it has the stronger the militias that create chaos in Darfur become.
It is pretty funny that the AU very often supports or defends the Sudanese government with regard to many issues and suggestions, and then asks the Darfur advocacy groups and the West to financially and technically help it put them into practice. There are many AU countries that have the financial ability to provide some assistance to the AU-UN force, but they do not. Libya, which opposed the possibility of Western intervention in Darfur as the authors mention, is an obvious example. I have always wondered why a state whose troops are not welcomed by the Sudanese or the AU authorities should be obliged to bear the responsibility of funding a force that would not do anything to protect civilians. As recent as last week on Friday November 27, UNAMID troops were bystanders while the Sudanese security forces and the Janjaweed were opening fire on a group of civilians in Deleig in West Darfur killing seven in a few minutes. This is what happens usually even in situations where one could save a life using a pistol. The memory of each and every Darfuri in Darfur is replete with such examples. Therefore, the question with regard to the infectiveness of the mission is not only one of equipment or under-funding. Some other explanations have to be found as well.
Nasredeen Abdulbari is a Sudanese lawyer based in Nairobi. He was an international law lecturer at the International and Comparative Law Department, University of Khartoum, Sudan. He can be reached at: [email protected].
I think the adverse comparison between UNAMID, a predominantly African force, and a putative UN or NATO force, may be mistaken. There are many reasons to criticize UNAMID. There are also many, different, reasons to criticize MONUC in DRC and NATO in Afghanistan.
The incident in Dileij last week reported in Sudan Tribune needs closer investigation before it is described as an example of UNAMID failure. So far, the only report I have seen is in the Sudan Tribune, and the main source cited is “Hussein Abu Sharati,” a somewhat shadowy “spokesman” for the SLM-Abdel Wahid. UNAMID denies that the incident happened at all. I don’t have any independent sources on this, but it is as well to be cautious before drawing too many conclusions.
it is a fruitful article and conclusion for the valuable book The Scramble for Africa: Darfur—Intervention and the USA, I hope I come through it soon.
First, I would like to thank Nasredeen for his commentary, which will hopefully serve as the basis for discussing what I would consider to be some important and oft-ignored or misconstrued issues surrounding Darfur, and humanitarian crises more generally.
The “genocide†debate surrounding Darfur has gone on for some time (both here and in other fora), and I have little to add beyond what we wrote in Scramble for Africa. However, I want to go beyond the “did genocide occur (or is it occurring now) in Darfur?†question and instead raise another, which speaks to an issue that Nasreeden raises above – why has Darfur been the subject of so much media and activist attention? In turn, one could ask the question, why has the genocide label (or the label of the “world’s worst humanitarian crisisâ€) been applied so frequently to Darfur, as opposed to other humanitarian tragedies?
In posing these questions, of course, I do not seek to downplay the severity of the Darfur crisis. Nor do I wish to suggest that there has been too much media coverage paid to Darfur (in fact, I would argue the opposite – that there has been too little – especially of the kind that promotes a deep understanding of the conflict, or suggests constructive ways for people to work to address it). What I do want to make clear is that there are considerations, far from objective, which have made “Darfur†a household name, while other crises remain in the shadows for the Western media.
Citing commentary from the Boston Globe, Nasredeen summarizes that these factors consist of, “Having a charismatic influential leader like the Dalai Lama, powerful or organized émigré communities in the West to publicize a cause and donate money, familiarity with the West, and attraction of celebrities’ attention…Even proficiency of English, the world’s most widely spoken language…helps in attracting attention.â€
While surely these factors make Western media attention more likely, a crucial item is missing from the list: the extent to which the humanitarian crisis, or the spin placed on it, fits the West’s political agenda. In fact, this would seem to be the operative factor, the one without which said media coverage will not be forthcoming.
Accordingly, the Darfur conflict rose to prominence in the West at a time when Washington was struggling to sell the foreign policy adventurism of the supposed “War on Terror†to the public (it still is), while the US was also locked into an increasingly heated battle with China for world superpower status. That the Darfur conflict could be (mis)interpreted and framed as a case study in the wickedness of the Arab and Muslim worlds (the “War on Terror’s†prime targets), backed by their shadowy Chinese enablers, allowed it to flourish in our political climate, not Ahmed Chalabi’s charisma. The Dalai Lama may bring the Western masses to his side with his charm, but if he were not opposing a major competitor in the international arena – China – would Western media be replete with sympathetic accounts of his people’s struggle? Does the highly courageous Afghan feminist and political representative Malalai Joya largely slip past the finely tuned eye of the Western press because she is unworthy of coverage, or is it because she opposes the US-backed Karzai government, and US meddling in her country more generally? The answers seem clear.
I do not doubt, as Nasredeen states, that most Darfur activists became involved in advocacy out of a sincere desire to address what was and is a humanitarian crisis of serious proportions. Yet that does not spare the Save Darfur movement from criticism, especially its leadership. Specifically, the Save Darfur Coalition has undoubtedly brought large amounts of attention to Darfur, though it also has a track record of marginalizing Sudanese, Darfuri, and Muslim voices – perhaps most infamously at the April 30, 2006 rally, to which not a single Muslim, Darfuri, or Sudanese speaker was scheduled to be invited (fortunately, a series of complaints made the Coalition change its tune). This is a damning manifestation of the Western tendency to fetishize exotic peoples and their suffering for their own purposes, rather than use our superior resources to follow their lead and thus empower their voices instead of ours. It is unsurprising, then, that the Save Darfur Coalition has tended to prioritize China-bashing and vague threats against Khartoum, and policy options of highly questionable wisdom such as a no-fly zone, over measures of concrete assistance to Darfuris, or actually calling on the US government to do something concrete such as fully fund and equip the peacekeepers.
Finally, to clarify, I do not believe, and the book does not argue, that a split in the Darfuri Islamist movement is somehow the main factor behind the conflict – rather, we frame it (in what is hardly a novel interpretation), at its most basic level, as a response by a neglected and brutalized periphery.
It is very unique article, it reflects how deeper and sophisticated you are Nasreldeen in this regard, Iwatched Professor Mohmood Mamadani while he was talking to Aljazeera TV just yesterday night, on a programme called(from Washington),I also have known Alex de Waal through his books and many articles concerning Darfur crisis,the men are very controversial.they should benefit from profitibale article like this instead of casting doubts on every idea or move that objectively and constructively contribute to coming up with a new way to solve this problem.a knoweledgeable person is aperson who respects his knoweledge in the first place and necessarily the minds of his/her listeners or readers.
Thankyou Nasreldeen.
**As recent as last week on Friday November 27, UNAMID troops were bystanders while the Sudanese security forces and the Janjaweed were opening fire on a group of civilians in Deleig in West Darfur killing seven in a few minutes.**
Please note the following statement issued by United Nations – African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) Dec. 1, 2009 titled ‘UNAMID Strongly Rejects Accusations in a Sudan Tribune Report against its Peacekeepers’:
“EL FASHER (DARFUR), Sudan, December 1, 2009/APO – According to a Sudan Tribune (ST) news report published on 29 November 2009, “seven Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) were killed Friday in West Darfur following a wrangle between the residents and government troops which attempted to force them to take part in voter registration.†ST reported that the alleged killings took place in Deleij IDPs camp, some 280 km from El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur state.
Sudan Tribune quoted Mr. Hussein Abu Sharati, presented as a spokesperson of Darfur IDPs and Refugees, as saying that “peacekeepers in the area were present but did not intervene to prevent the killing.â€
UNAMID strongly rejects the implied accusation that its forces in the area of Deleij camp knew about the alleged killings but failed to perform their task of protecting civilians.
UNAMID investigated the allegations, meeting with IDPs and the Umdahs of Deleij camp who assured UNAMID that no killings took place as reported by the ST and that the voters’ registration process in the area was concluded with no problems.
UNAMID deplores that such serious accusations against its peacekeepers were published without even taking the pain to verify them, either independently or with UNAMID.
False reports of this nature can only ignite violence in the region and jeopardize lives, at a time when UNAMID relentlessly strives to protect civilians and end violence in Darfur.”
It is very important to support Darfurian people in their crisis and publicize their case in order to help them. So any help is needed. Still the war is continuing. I think there are some areas in Darfur most be given a witness for what is happening, especially for the people in north al Geneina such as Mangura, Kulbus and Abu Suruj.
I would appreciate if some one can give more details about Mr. Hussein Abu Shartai? Some friends from Dar Fur tell me they don’t know of him, others maintain he is based in Dar Fur, in one of the camps. Sudan Tribune often quotes him,indeed it was the only paper that reported this latest incident.
It’s very thoughtful and interesting comment and shows the professional view in it’s correct angle.
It’s clear that many writes failed when they tried to analyze the background of Darfur conflict and fall into the prepared view of Sudanese Government that the matter is just betweenn the farmers and nomads and forgot the same brutal killing in 1987-1989 the previous tribal conflict during Alsadig Almahdi’s reign of Sudan. The Janjaweed was established since that, The Bashir government just reorganized the existing Janjaweed and gave them more logistic and political support and planned for them how to divest all villages of cattle and to plunder the the traders in Darfur main roads because they knew that in the previous war the villagers used their cows to buy guns to defend themselves. This plan was implemented in first 12 years of Bashir’s reign and it was so and they made trading relations with neighbouring Arabs to export the meat of the plundered cuttle through Wadi Sayedna Air Port then they also opened the Sudan Chad border and brought a large number of Arabs so called-Darfur Ruturutu just to prepare the vast attack.
About the intention of attack to clear the land is false because all Darfur villages are interrelated and most of them experienced the Janjaweed war previously so those who survived in camps now not because of the mercy of Janjaweed but because of their special art of escaping and passing information among their villages. This time it was just something new appeared which is airplanes that came bombing from the sky before the military appear so its sound is usually enough for the women or children to run two hour ceaslessly to save his/her life.
It’s true that Bush’s administration played the main role to push Darfur issue to be the top world agenda but now the issue is just abandoned to ICC what made Sudan government to moblize the Arab and African country to help him to find the way to escape for it’s now using them to defend him like the Mbeki Panel report which contain funny and superficial view of Darfur conflict and no any accusation to Bashir’s government but things became as clear as crystal when the Egypt foreign minister spoke out.
It is is an amazing article, I like the way that the topic has been analyzed. The points of the article are really interesting and the good thing about it is that it has been written by a Sudanese person who really know what’s going on there.
Dear Nasredeen Abdulbari,
I will present a series of your quotes followed by my comments in order to disabuse you from many of the notions you present and seem to espouse.
“History will tell that President Bush had paid the Darfur crisis sufficient attention….it was the Bush administration that played a crucial role in putting the Darfur crisis on the top of the world agenda” -Nasredeen Abdulbari
Before you rush to defend the Bush administration (or Bush himself), first examine what they did know in the early period of the conflict and what they did/did not do to stop it. The very allies that you commend might be the very devils that have and continue to fuel this fire. There are positive and negative contributions to this entire affair, from both sides of the conflict. The Bush administration was largely silent on Darfur in the early onslaught of the conflict just as they have been silent to the sufferings of many peoples in this world. This comment of yours is so outrageous and distorted that it disconcerts me.
“It [the GoS] does not want to normalize relations with the suffering and vulnerable people of Darfur, but wants to do everything it can to normalize relations with powerful nations for purely opportunistic objectives. In international politics, it is quite understandable to adopt and follow a pragmatic foreign policy that secures political and economic interests for your nation. What is not understandable, though, is to seek normalization of relations with other countries and gaining of interests against your own people” – Nasredeen Abdulbari
Again, this illustrates defects in your mode of reasoning. Question: what is your definition of normal relations with ones people? We must distinguish between normal and necessary. I would argue that it is highly irregular and “not naturally normal” to establish a democratic government that fears its voter constituents and behaves in the interest of the common good. That does not mean that it is not necessary or willed by most us. My friend, the successful western democracies are the exception NOT the rule! It is a simple thermodynamics law: entropy tends towards chaos and disorder. So do humans and systems of governance. The very idea of having political and civic institutions, and establishing systems of checks and balances, as a necessary measure to curtail such tendencies towards disorder is one that reasoned (and often oppressed) men rise up to enact after being dealt centuries of blows from the vicissitudes of political order. Only after such trials and tribulations, do reasoned and learned men establish systems of order and nonzero-sum gain economic progress that guarantees the near-permanent offsetting of this natural tendency. So my friend, your definition of what normal is contorted. How can you argue that it is “not normal” for governments not to act in a wholesomely destructive and self-interested fashion when evolutionary biology has very much established that we humans are very much in a perpetual state of competing as individuals and as united groups to promote our own individual causes? Such competition can equally be negative or positive and it is a fallacy to assume otherwise. The western democracies have very painfully conquered these negative elements of their society(sometimes through other people’s pains) .
“the limitedness of the resources in the era of a global economic crisis enforces rich nations to focus their efforts on the most acute problems or the most solvable ones. In addition, there are too many crises to address today” -Nasredeen Abdulbari
This is a lame excuse/reason for why Darfur is getting so much attention. It is a confounding proposition you make that the UN, AU, and human rights organizations make assessments of the “ease of solving problems” as the cornerstone impetus to engaging in conflicts of gross human rights violations. Ok, say you are right… if the issue were easier to solve than others then why hasn’t it been solved? The very fact that Darfur is still an issue and that we are still discussing it goes to show that the focusing of attention on it IS geopolitical AS WELL as humanitarian. This is the political calculus that enters into consideration before allocating money to any organization (whether UNAMID or Save Darfur). Your attempts to extricate geopolitical and humanitarian causes is a gross exaggeration and over-simplification of a truly dynamic reality.
“The birth of the Save Darfur movement was simply a practical response to the call by the Sudanese, the Darfurians, and the human rights activists from all over the world to do something. Save Darfur founders have chosen to act and advocate at a time when those who criticize it were, as they are today, silent and sitting by…Therefore, I think it is both misleading and wrong to make statements that Darfur activist and advocacy groups have any intention to demonize Islam.” -Nasredeen Abdulbari
This is the first time I hear from someone commenting on others who have intellectually and equally commented on, praised, and criticized Darfur grassroots activism (such as Save Darfur). It is also the first time I hear that those criticizing the Darfur activists cite that their intentions are to defame or demonize Islam. To my knowledge, criticism of Darfur activism goes to all levels of active bodies or institutional organs. And the criticism is mostly rooted in the nature of the UNDERSTANDING of the conflict, not on the reasons for engaging in humanitarian aid. As a matter of fact, many critics agree that some degree of political intervention is necessary in Darfur. The question is to what extent? To which I answer: ambiguities matter all the same. An unmeasured light handed and heavy handed engagement with the GoS can lead to both atrocious deaths as well as unnecessary and avoidable ones.
“there are two reasons why some Western countries are not willing to support UNAMID. The first is that there is no peace to be kept in the first place. The second is that states and activists that suggested the idea of sending international troops instead of hybrid ones realized from the very beginning the hybrid force would not make a different on the ground.” -Nasredeen Abdulbari
Again, doing a disservice and disreputing the very organs and bodies that are trying to constructively make a difference.
It is just such a shame that there doesn’t seem to be opposition members that hold very solid and reasoned grounds against the Government of Sudan.
I think there is a larger issue at stake here. There are many disgruntled, disenfranchised, and frustrated Sudanese (communists and moderates) who make such loud uproars and have never really offered a truly uniting platform to the case of the Sudan. I think someone really needs to investigate the issue of wealth creation and concentration, which has been amassing in the center of Sudan and has lead to the impoverishment and sufferings of all 4 wings (North,South,East,West) of the Sudan. Ofcourse, one would be remiss to not note the obvious mismanagement and crazed involvement this government has had in the (as Winston Churchill put it) “formation of a great centralised capital, to the consequent impoverishment of the provinces, to the degradation of the peaceful inhabitants through oppression and want, to the ruin of commerce, the decay of learning, and the ultimate demoralisation even of the military order through overbearing pride and sensual indulgence”
Therefore I propose something which may not be that new:
(1) Wealth in Sudan is concentrated and controlled in the center because those are the obvious post-colonially stationed zones of extraction that are relatively competitively advantaged areas. Thereore there is a natural tendency for the government of Sudan to want to maintain and concentrate this wealth in the center.
(2) the call to arms by many of our North,South,East,West brothers is one of clear economic and political disenfranchisement. the government of Sudan has not provided basic economic and political services to any peoples of the North, West, and East because it inherited an unresolved conflict with the south. This conflict was rooted on the notion of governance and the very obvious north-south wealth, education, and political gap which was, again, inherited from a colonial legacy with the British Empire.
What we need is very clear positions rather than distortions. It is one thing to try to attract help from the outside. But it is quite another to raise up unnecessarily provocative and unreasonable notions that further destabilize the environment for the unhappy many who actually live in Sudan. Let it be said, I am not pro NIF. I m neither pro SPLA/M, nor Umma… it is all a basket case of nutty people. To my knowledge one of the ultimate issues is addressing our defective theistic/sufist/cultural kernel. We have no cold-blooded atheists or secularists and pro-market Sudanese who can take a visible stand against this government. All I keep reading from the anti-NIF is venting.
It is sad to hear Mohamed Alkalass say that men like Mahmood Mamdani and Alex de Waal’s sophistication pass as controversial. Alas, these comments and perceptions exist when we are presented with highly intellectual brain centers whose engines of reason surpass the commoner’s. It is the movers and shakers who get the limelight, and it is they who often perpetuate it. In my understanding, many Sudanese believe Mr De Waal has an excellent command and understanding of Sudan’s issues, even more so than your bilingual english/arabic newspaper-reading Sudanese. As non-Sudanese, such individuals should be praised, regardless of how much their enthralling clarifications oppose personal views. I for one, am very impressed by Ms Flint, Mr De Waal, Mamdani, and their ilk’s influence in providing genuine change in not only perceptions but approaches.
-Jamal
Dear Nasredeen
Thank you for your excellent presentation of the book, The scramble for Africa
Darfur: Intervention-and the US. I agree with the most of the points you raised.I would like to add that UNAMID as a military force is ineffectice.It cannot protect civilians in Darfur. Khartoum has been able to restrict its movements thus preventing it from carrying out its mandate. Khartoum has also violated all SC. resolutions regarding Darfur including the ban on military flights over Darfur.It’s China’s unconditional support to the regime which encourages khartoum to be defiant and intransigent unless this issue is resolved, the suffering of the victims in Darfur will continue. Sala
Dear Naseradin,
What is interesting in your review about the book as you highlighted; a) the foreign police of the US b) The cutting-cross issues on International relation and humanitarian intervention, failure to return rhetoric into concrete actions c) The Darfur crisis.
The author by revealing that the Darfurian were able to make their way out of the pogrom, I do agree with you, is obviously astonishing point while the media, UN reports, AU reports and other researches proved that people were bombed by [Helicopters] meanwhile the Janjaweed, on the ground was finishing the remnant lives [from bombing], within that difficult time people didn’t get many options; either have to escape and live or get killed[regardless many women, those managed to escape, trapped by GBV violence]. Returning back with the history to the beginning of the crisis in Darfur, 2003, the government intention was clearly and explicitly to annihilate specific group of tribes [see Darfur and the Crime of Genocide; John Hagan & Renona Rymond] and clean Darfur. The reasons of the Darfur crisis has a very deep roots in the history, yet most of conflicts that occurred in Darfur were solvable as they were simple and convincible mechanisms were always there to reconcile before moving to courts.
Other thing that worth to be mentioned, which I look to read about it, yet rarely I found articles on that, what is the government of Sudan looking for by prolonging this conflict; a) land occupation is still going on which to some extent prevents a lot of IDPs, regardless refugees, to return back to cultivate or settle b) The government by legitimizing the Janajaweed militia[ many receive military index number and a lot have been given high ranks in police and military department whilst other forces were created to ensure that most of gun-holders are government officials and employees, in a process to cover the reality] c) Allocation of many check points near the places of origin, every five to ten km people have to stop and get inspected [why?….nobody knows!! Many have to pay passing-fees!!! As they are not Sudanese!!] or places where a lot of people return to obstruct any endeavor to access to justice by extinguishing any rising complain, from returnees concerning their situation, in its cradle before getting to the police. d) from 2005 and 2007, that assessments, COR from GoS side participated, proved that many non-Sudanese nomads were granted nationality whilst [this is another issue] the real Darfurians face a lot of difficulties to during the process.
Many issues will come up when the Darfurian stand nose to nose with the government to finalize the peace agreement and start applying its provisions; the tragedy is getting complicated everyday and the International community is just reporting and barking without biting which is a policy that need to be changed.
Thanks,
Agi