Dear Alex,

At the time when genocide charges is handed down against President Omar al-Bashir, it is interesting, especially due to the fact that you seem to imply the majority of the death toll in Darfur is consisted of Arabs and they occur during intra-Arab conflicts. Of course, such implication is in line with the notion, which is suggesting that the Africans are not the only victims in Darfur and in most cases the victimization of Africans is exaggerated. Intra-ethnic violence can be as deadly, however, when the state apparatus are employed to promote ethnic cleansing, it increases the threat of annihilation of some groups, hence, bringing into focus the interest of international communities. So, the reason Darfur is under international radar is because the state is responsible for the ethnic cleansing.

Now, with charges of genocide brought against al-Bashir, one wonders why you are still trying to depict “other source of violence” to be responsible for the ongoing killings in Darfur.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see you open the discussions on the genocide charges against al-Bashir or to read your views about it. I just thought the timing of your posting is not in place with the current occurrence.

Thanks.

Steve Paterno

Dear Alex,

You are right, I agree that the low rate of killing within Kalma and other displaced camps in Darfur can certainly “not lend credence to the comparisons between Kalma and Auschwitz.” However, the legitimate argument that can be made is that Kalma is not founded out of peace, but as a result of people having their villages razed aground, relatives murdered, women raped, and properties looted.

Perhaps it is here that one can see what people in Kalma and Auschwitz Camps have in common. Maybe another differences was that the NAZI regime was generally good in keeping records of their victims, but does President Omar al-Bashir even has the record of the 10,000 people he claimed to be killed. As much as the statistics can be disputed in this case, the mere existence of displaced camps such as Kalma are stark reminder of threats pose against humanity in Darfur region.

Steve Paterno

Shifting trends of violence will not change the facts of what happened in 2004 and 2005 anyway. Whatever’s one position on the PTC’s decision; monitoring and reporting on what’s happening today is not going to change that.

All things are secondary to the prospect of war. That very fact is driving every dissenting Sudanese. It is time that someone said what’s on every rational Sudanese person’s mind. The west and its proxies are preparing northern and southern Sudan for a long inter-border war and are creating a new frontier and middle east/african flash point. As some have suggested, Blackwater mercenaries have been training the southern Sudanese army. Southern Sudan has timid friends in the AU but a more approachable ally in AFRICOM or other military initiatives, as well as US aid-based groups who provide and fund the academic literature that newspapers thrive on. As I read on NPR that Rebecca Hamilton is preparing a book on “Listening to Darfurian Voices”, and based on some comments, I have come to realize, agendas are less about exposing and discussing facts and more about framing facts. There is a hostility or lack of receptiveness to seemingly mundane updates on violence in Darfur. Disaster-capitalist NGOs are shipping new interns to study and right books, having had little exposure or understanding of Sudan. In listening to amateurs like Rebecca Hamilton talk anecdotally about their comparative experiences in day one of Harvard law versus a week’s prior work in Darfur, one gets glimpses of Prendergastan ambitions to light up the resume and move up the ladder of aid-based relief work. Indeed, many Sudan watchers can be viewed as up-and-coming eager beavers. This is an industry with a life of its own. The only people who’s voices are not being listened to or who’s voices are being co-opted in the name of giving imbalanced university lectures are the Sudanese peoples.

Dear Matt
I would like to know about which part of Dar Fur are you talking?

Jamaledin,

If you are saying that genocide is a probable outcome in all wars, I think you could make a strong argument. However, my comments on genocide were made strictly in response to your question, “In fact, if you say it was poorly organized, then how could there be a genocide?” You are correct that it is more difficult to confirm genocide when it has been “poorly organized.” Formal records produced by a recognized government are a very persuasive thing. However, I wanted to specifically address the idea of “genocide on the cheap,” if I may borrow and modify a now-famous turn of phrase from Alex de Waal. It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether international understanding of war is today informed primarily by the views held by one particular cultural group.

I suspect genocide in Darfur because I have appraised myself of what is going on there to the best of my ability. The fact that I cannot visit Darfur at the present time has not prevented me from educating myself using a variety of materials published by people with exactly that kind of first-hand experience or access to primary sources, including Alex de Waal, Samantha Power (her August 30, 2004 article in the New Yorker magazine, “Dying in Darfur,” was based in part on a visit to Chad and Darfur), Julie Flint, the BBC, and the International Crisis Group, which builds its reports on the basis of direct contact with local informants. To quote directly from Darfur: A Short History of a Long War (2005), “Month by month Khartoum ratcheted up its military infrastructure in Darfur – and central to its counterattack was its tried and tested militia strategy. In the subsequent debate over whether the war in Darfur constituted genocide or not – a debate whose burden of proof, paradoxically, became a hindrance to action – one thing is certain: the people who decided to use the Janjawiid as a counterinsurgency force knew exactly what it would mean. They had used similar militias in the Nuba mountains in the early 1990s, and in the contested oilfields of Southern Sudan starting in 1998, and had seen the results. Now they were planned a replay.” (p. 102) The question of whether genocide occurred in Darfur is wholly independent of whether it has taken place elsewhere, or even whether genocide is a human tragedy typical of national development along the Westphalian model (I would argue that it is).

I’m afraid I cannot determine whether or not you were being facetious with respect to the French. Is it that you feel the French are less hypocritical than others because of their stance on Rwanda? If so, how would you respond to the fact that they have pointedly ignored abuses in other countries where they have king-making power, as in Chad?

As for Blackwater (which now operates under a new name, Xi), I am not arguing that the U.S. has not shown its preference for a divided Sudan by allowing that training to go ahead. However, to suggest that it wants war, or that the presence of training missions is good evidence of that, is unsustainable. What would be the beneficial outcome of such a clash? You are correct to write that the U.S. has often meddled in the affairs of other countries. My suspicion is that it is anticipating a war between North and South Sudan, and would prefer that the South win. However, to argue that Xi’s presence testifies to a plot to divide Sudan solely on the basis of your abiding suspicion of the U.S. is a bit like insisting that you can correctly make a diagnosis of tuberculosis on a patient who is coughing because coughing is one symptom of tuberculosis. That is bad medicine: coughing is also a symptom of a range of other maladies, and may not reflect tuberculosis at all.

Best,

Matt

Matthew,

Yes I was being facetious about the French. But I admire their relationship with Africa at many levels (I have experience in this regard). Yes they are much less hypocritical but they are also losing a fighting battle in preserving their historical integrity with regards to their involvement in the Rwandan genocide.

Secondly, Robert Zoellick once told NCP members (during the early onslaught of the Darfur conflict) to “get rid of the problem”. This gave the NCP a “license to kill”. This merits investigation. What was the developing relationship between the NCP and Bush administration? How might it have changed?

What is the concern for war between North and South? You are suggesting that there is a cause for concern too? What indicators make you believe so? Maybe we are both viewing the signs from different angles.

(yes i know Xi is Blackwater)

Lastly, I’m sorry you’re currently unable to visit Sudan. But I hope you get the chance to not just visit Darfur, as in how Samantha Powers did, but to live in Sudan for a substantial amount of time (what ever happened to Samantha anyways? I haven’t heard what she’s been up to in the news with regards to genocidal Darfur). While there, I highly encourage you to learn Arabic (as best as possible) and to engage with people from all corners of Sudan. You might begin to realize an ultimate transformative experience and understanding of Sudan.

I’m afraid, I had more to say but I don’t want to give up too much at the moment.

Best,

Jamaledin

Dear Steve,

Yes the bit about “economics” was a digression. I’ll stay within discussion next time. My point was to convey that the talking points raised are always framed in such a manner as to put us on the defensive. Matthew Sinn brought up the CPPCG’s definition of “genocide” as if its the end all be all in making sense for the crimes committed in Sudan. I respectfully disagree with that. This is the same (you’re either with us or against us), left vs right, black and white prism that Sudan watchers appraise when addressing Sudan.

Secondly, if you had followed my writings, you would see that I am weary of the SPLA and the NCP equally. I have said nothing malicious against southern Sudan, nor the aspirations of southern Sudanese for peace, justice, economic opportunity, and good livelihood. No one can deny the historical injustices suffered by south Sudan. I never said anything about western involvement in early rebellions in southern Sudan. I never talked about the dates you listed, neither did I detract from the struggles of southern Sudanese.

My comments were purely based on current events unfolding that are leading to the referendum, starting with the presence of Blackwater (I refuse to call them Xi) mercenaries in southern Sudan. This is a hostile development. It is bad for all of Sudan, as was the weapons purchases Khartoum completed before the eyes of the SPLM and the “behind-the-back” Ukrainian weapons purchases uncovered in Kenya as destined for the SPLM. If the the US military (under the watch of the Pentagon) were training SPLM soldiers, there may have been minimum checks. But Blackwater? These are troubling signs. To me, it appears there is a preparation for war underway and it can only be encouraged with the backing of a super power like the US.

It is just confounding to myself how someone can ask me how the presence of mercenaries cannot be construed as a preparation for war? Absolutely confounding. It is either a genuine perspective or a blind-sighting proposition.

I did address matters raised on some level. Systematized war that targets specific groups with the intent to obliterate an ethnicity, tribe, race, and culture is genocide. War born with a political intent is not. This is a serious point of contention. Most denizens of Khartoum are not oblivious to the happenings in Darfur. If you cannot get Khartoum to agree that it is a genocide, then how can you achieve your aims? What I’m saying, there is a disconnect. One year ago we knew that 300,000 died from the barrel and blade of the janjaweed. Today we believe 200,000 faced forcible conditions of starvation, disease, and malnutrition. Something is up here. For the last year I have been searching the internet for pictures of graveyards: looking for the skulls, bones, and ashes of the victims of this tragedy. I still haven’t found any! Please help me believe that this tragedy was a genocide. It has caused me enough grief when I have conversations with strangers who eagerly ask for my opinion or information. I do not have ONE family member from any part of Sudan who ever raised the word genocide to me. I have a friend from Darfur who told me his parents are just as confused about the news they watch. What is going on here???

If the controversy continues, I’m afraid it will play into the hands of the NCP.

David,

I have spent time reading sections of Mr. Scahill’s book, which, if I remember correctly, is long on conspiracy theories and short on evidence, which explains why I have not yet made it a purchase. He continually works up the idea that Blackwater is a latter-day Praetorian Guard, and prejudicial to liberal democracy — all while ignoring the clear departures of modern experience from that of imperial Rome. The Praetorian Guard was stationed inside the capital; Blackwater contractors are fighting overseas. Rome was eventually overthrown by mercenaries only after they had effectively replaced the army; Blackwater provides combat support services to one of the largest professional militaries on the planet. In fact, colonial America, which often depended upon fighting forces tied to particular personalities (those who financed regiments were frequently rewarded with brevet commissions in the militia); engaged aboriginal peoples as combat auxiliaries; and which authorized privateers on a regular basis was far more vulnerable to the kind of miserable end described by Mr. Scahill than is the United States today. But more than that, Mr. Scahill’s book is also depressingly one-sided: he takes it on faith that the merits of his own political ideology are self-evident, and those of the “right-wing,” non-existent. That said, your reminder has encouraged me to add Mr. Scahill’s book to my library: I look forward to discussing this subject further after I acquire a copy later this month.

Despite believing that Mr. Scahill has an unsubstantiated fear of all things Christian, I concede that it is perfectly reasonable for Sudanese to be concerned that Blackwater’s interest in South Sudan reflects its leader’s apocalyptic worldview. Prince certainly campaigned hard for a loosening of sanctions and a clear expression of American support for South Sudan. It is probably significant that, while Bush did allow the Sudanese some defense imports and training, Blackwater did not get its contract.

My immediate recommendation would be to take a closer look at the specifics of Blackwater’s behavior in Sudan, rather than just the ideological context. First, I know of no current contract between Blackwater and the Government of South Sudan, in spite of renewed campaigning since sanctions were lifted in 2006. I found a recent article by McClatchy indicating that Blackwater has escaped legal prosecution for making illegal sales pitches, first to Garang, then to Salva Kiir, for $2 million to train bodyguards and then for $100 million worth of comprehensive military training and the equipment to go with it, but nothing to suggest that such deals have yet been cemented. Apparently, an exchange of software encryption keys and satellite phones did occur, in violation of U.S. export law. More significant still, Blackwater’s sales pitch was reportedly encouraged by elements in the CIA and State Department who may have perceived Garang’s death as an assassination. Although the McClatchy article emphasizes the Christian devotion of key players in the sales pitch, the comment, “Africa was a new market, and Sudan’s Christian-Muslim divide looked to some within Blackwater as a front in Bush’s ‘war on terrorism,'” suggests that profits as much as Christian sympathy might have been behind Blackwater’s avid interest.

Second, it is unclear to me why military assistance would necessarily be evidence that the South is preparing for war, or that the United States is seeking it. Today, the Christian Right has far less political power than it once did. If George Bush planned to act on Darfur or South Sudan, why did he not do so when the clamor for American action was far greater than it is today? He lifted sanctions on South Sudan in 2006, but took no aggressive action against the north. The period of hawkish editorials has passed us by. Prince is now seeking to sell Blackwater, which, if its business interests have tended to reflect his personality these past years, may soon become a very different beast.

With all due respect, I commend you a second time to my remarks on mercenaries. I made clear distinction between the “romantic” mercenary of the 1960s and 1970s and the “corporate” mercenary that appeared after 1991. Blackwater (and Xe) clearly fall in the later category. In fact, if McClatchy is correct, than Blackwater’s offering price — a 50% share of South Sudan’s future mineral wealth — suggests that they are hardly engaging in mere Christian charity. I was frankly astonished by that bid.

The McClatchy article, from 27 June, can be found here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/27/96579/obama-wont-charge-blackwater-with.html

Best,

Matt

Jamaledin,

Could you provide more specifics about Zoellick’s alleged comment? A quick Google search didn’t turn up anything from my end.

My own perception is that the Bush administration was interested in the NCP only insofar as it wanted to bring Khartoum to the peace table for the purposes of carrying on with the CPA. There was apparently a certain degree of detente between Khartoum and Washington after September 11 — the NCP was said to be “towing the line” on terrorism with some helpful sharing of intelligence — but I know of no serious interest in stronger ties. The Bush administration was very clearly sympathetic to the South, and relaxed some of the long-standing sanctions against it.

Samantha Power is now on the National Security Council, which explains her absence from the headlines since 2008.

Best,

Matt

Matthew,

The first paragraph of queries has quite expansive series of juxtaposed rhetorical questions (some may merit independent threads of discussion). Contrarily, the lead up to the follow-up question offers clear insight, indirectly and alarmingly standing on its own: “might genocide signal the necessity of abandoning reunion in favor of some other solution, possibly including formal partition?”
Partition of what? Darfur from the greater Sudan? the next point of inflection we should expect to hear/read? bold
the question, in of itself, sounds like an “accusation”, not “suspicion”: but we are in agreement that we should first establish there was indeed a “genocide”. It seems the crimes best not be qualified as a genocide for the time being. Julie Flint and Alex de Waal on the Washington Post on June 28, 2008, “Justice Off Course in Darfur” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702632.html
it is soundly logical not to wholly entrust extrapolated “facts” from reports by members of the international community whom spend years writing, revising, and debating figures. at the risk of sounding like a hard-balling obfuscater: its imperative to confirm data collection, data interpretation and analysis, and distinguish genuine data from echoes of the “going word”. its also difficult to verify how measurements were taken and statistical analysis was employed. Thought-provoking as that may sound, this doesn’t discourage the need for humanitarian work to quell the effects of the violence.
apart from the integrity of the data, or continual interpretations in light of ongoing inter-tribal violence, is the effect of its morphing and convenient impact on the media, public opinion and ‘clock gone awry’ public perception, and policy, which must be put to question; Like I said before, during the height of the 04-05 conflict, it was 300k dead from violence. Today it’s 200k+ dead from disease and famine related causes (i read the zoellick bit then; no surprise its hard to find; ill let you know when i do; nevertheless, Bush & Co. enjoyed a visibly improved relationship with the NCP)
This issue of “genocide” is one in retreat, visibly so in the eyes of busy but conscious objectors. What isn’t missed, on conscious (unforgetting) observers, is how quickly and quietly in unprofessional (media) spheres.
While revision of data continues, it is difficult to have a lack of “misapprehension of the problems in Darfur”. I have relatives working in Darfur and they speak for themselves and are very clear to me about what’s going on. Some have suggested that some refugees are profiting from renting out abandoned property to NGOs in favor of camps and price-depressed (free) staples.
There was sufficient ‘allaying’ of minority public misapprehension fed to us during the case for War in Iraq and Israel’s two-week fist-pounding on Lebanon. Dis-inhibited support may have been welcome then; that sort of sport is not welcome here, whether the call is for Western armed forces interference or blown out humanitarian presence without preconditions to GoS-backed security.
I never said genocide has moral ambiguities. War does. If it was implied, there’s no need for misdirection.
Praise for Blackwater’s demonstrable “professionalism” deserves commendation. It’s nominal transformation to Xe services also extricates its history. It is an “interesting” development. Also interesting is how elements of the SPLM are eager to pursue the referendum and forgo talks on the court-arbitrated border demarcation. In the backdrop the SPLM is consolidating security and receiving formal training from Blackwater. can someone say Kashmir in the making? even as an analyst, this one cannot so willfully elude the mindful.
Matthew, US energy security considerations that are being visibly neglected. WSJ> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575376712353150310.html.
A preparation for war can be subsumed for a diplomatic escalation or confrontation backed by energy security directives. A “silent” development to a proxy war is not as costly as is proposed. A “hard-charge” on the intentionality is not necessary as the doctor’s prognosis on U.S psychoactive behavior is quite clear.
And what, if I may ask, is a “silent peace” anyways? One would invariably hope that peace is silent, and if silent is sustainable.

Jamaledin

Jamaledin,

Apologies for not clarifying my thoughts on partition. I was speaking abstractly about possible responses to bitter violence, especially inter-ethnic, inter-cultural, or sectarian, in which diverging ways of life contribute to extreme post-conflict alienation. If we study history and conclude that certain ways of life often destroy others, or that the consolidation of the state forces “out-group” populations to conform to the norms of those in positions of power, then perhaps the solution is to grant the “out-group” an independent existence. My suspicion is that such a solution would be disappointing, and perhaps even detrimental, if applied to Darfur, which can probably have little hope of a prosperous existence as an independent state. Darfur is generally resource poor.

I am less interested in proving genocide, honestly, than simply agreeing on the fact that mass killing has taken place. It was intentional killing, initiated and enhanced by the Sudanese government. Alex and Julie correctly call the Sudanese government a “brutal mafia.” This killing was rarely systematic, and often by proxy, but it was not necessarily indiscriminate: the government targeted those whom it defined as rebel sympathizers; its agents, the Janjawiid, targeted those whom they identified as blacks; and both targeted anybody else who stood in their way, whatever their identity.

I said that the charge of genocide has moral ambiguities. It does. It implies that the target of killing is a measure of how heinous is the crime. That is almost grotesque. What is the value of any particular human life? Why do we seem to regret the killing of particular groups more than indiscriminate killing? Can the developing world ever be satisfied that the charge of genocide is not hypocritical if it is coming from Western nations that are themselves no historical strangers to genocide?

In Sierra Leone, the mercenaries in question were Executive Outcomes. Based on my limited knowledge of Blackwater’s history, I would avoid holding them apart as a sterling example of a responsible corporation — especially as new information regarding sanctions violations have arisen. I think that is typical of the entire industry. However, that isn’t something that couldn’t be regulated and more closely scrutinized.

If the SPLM prefers independence, and anticipates it — as do most Sudanese, to my knowledge — then isn’t the development of the South’s armed forces unsurprising? Also, I don’t know that they are receiving formal training at this time. I know that there has been some training and non-combat equipment provided by the United States, including pilot training. I know that some private military companies have been hiring Kenyan soldiers in anticipation of a border war between newly-independent South Sudan and (North) Sudan in 2011. And I know that the SPLM has purchased about one hundred T-72 tanks.

The fact that the United States is concerned about its energy security is not compelling evidence that it intends war between North and South Sudan. In fact, the ideal outcome for American investors would be a peaceful transition to independence, following by a broadening of cooperation between North and South Sudan. What benefit can war bring?

I would define “silence peace” as peace without justice — general amnesty for some or all of the persons known to have committed violence, or suspected of being responsible for violence. The question that post-war societies face is often whether to pursue justice, and possibly to sow bitterness and a sense of continuing community grievance, or to pursue peace in silence, at the potential cost of simmering tensions and feelings of unaddressed grievance. To borrow a page from Dr. Stephen David’s discussion of Israel’s policy of “targeted killing” (assassination, if you like), it is human nature to feel most comfortable when good and bad alike receive what are considered their “just desserts.” When those known to be bad go free, and those known to be good are not given compensation for their suffering, it may be that society as a whole is wounded, and the proper paradigm for group interaction somehow altered for the worse.

Best,

Matt

Matthew,

“Why do we seem to regret the killing of particular groups more than indiscriminate killing?”
You are right. From my perspective, this is a disgusting state of affairs today. The imagery of discriminately killed “blacks” is the pornography of war and destruction that provides the transformative catalyst for the neurosis of “white man’s guilt” to evolve into the “never again” ego of “man’s burden”. In the backdrop, judicial reforms are underway to try “failing” states as a remedy.
Yes, the Janjaweed was not indiscriminate in its objectives and it was a proxy group. The Sudanese government IS a “brutal mafia”. There are similarly “legitimate” mafias that you mentioned that can also be characterized as brutal. The presence of state brutality is unfortunately on-going. We still wait to hear what the ICC is doing about ‘those’ states (Ocampo said, in an interview, “gaza is interesting”). It is that sort of equitable realist framework that i hope can be developed.
I want to turn to what you said about “blacks” being targeted however. I will bring up the Zionist underpinnings of “arabs” versus “blacks”, as if there are substantive non-blacks in Sudan. This is an improper and unacceptable qualitative description but its imagery has specific intentions and consequences on perception and the battleground of western policy.
Sudanese are all blacks. We can instead say, at the behest of the NCP, the predominantly ethnically baggara nomads fought against the predominantly ethnically zaghawa, fur, and masalit farmers, all whom enjoyed a visibly peaceable history until recently. The latter suffered atrocities and the NCP abetted crimes against humanity.
You once asked me to consider that American foreign policy on Sudan may not be so tinged with zionist influence. I ask you to consider the opposite for the idea is definitely not novel to me. I do distinguish true American policy from Israeli ones and most of the time they are in tandem (although its still unclear who is master and commander).
As is the case in other parts of the region, there may be a confluence of interest by members of the israeli and american zionist spectrum (in washington the going is how little, not how much, of a zionist are you). i cannot substantiate this, but what’s relevant is that i, and most sudanese agree its there. i wouldnt expect an admission in that regard. but, still, Id like to add, as far as Sudan is concerned, the Republican party has been most favorable to Sudanese political developments (in my view), for this party holds more galls against democrat Zionist liberal political traditions of interference. however the Republicans were also unclear about their policy towards the 2003 Darfur rebellion (their plate was full then). The NCP, having enjoyed a record-breaking comprehensive peace agreement, were enjoying improved communication with the White House and were developing a national plan of governance, a marked departure from the military navigations that have steered the country to social and economic ruin. On a relevant tangent, it deserves mention: the prior fallout of Turabi with Bashir was a significant ideological split in the NIF, that didn’t get its rightful weight in acceptance due to its then-obscurity. It can be said, if the fallout with Turabi was the ideological “crossing of the Rubicon”, the signing of the CPA was the ink that sealed it so. The NCP was eager to remove the military uniform for a chance at governance. Project “Islamization” would not have survived another decade. i think the ncp knew this. But even if the Islamization spirit remained, we can then turn to its ideologue for answers about this “racial” policy of eliminating “blacks” as is so eagerly accentuated in the media and literature, these days. You may be surprised to know the main founder of modern Sudan, of the Islamist party, Hassan Elturabi, has a PhD in Law from France and speaks a number of languages (including fluent english). Today’s Sudan is a deviation of Turabi’s Sudan, as today’s America is Reagan’s America. If you listen to the spirit of his religious/political teachings, you will note that even he is not a racial ideologue. Similarly, as much as we want to believe that 30,000 Iranian Jews are under threat of extermination from the state of Iran, well that simply isn’t the case. Sudanese traditions are influenced by sufist ones, not puritanical sunni or sunni wahabi ones. The islamic project is not the same “acid splashing”-type we hear about in afghanistan or the “chop off your stealing hand” we read about in the backwards God-doms of saudi arabia. You will note, islam did not spread to sudan through Islamic conquest, as it did in Egypt, but through cross-border trade and intermarriage.. a gradual history of voluntary assimilation. All this is to say matthew, the sudanese political establishment is not some black-fearing plantation owning collective. the “black question” is and was never a question as the “jewish question” tragically once was in Nazi Germany. the lack of distinction pervades the arguments of those who present this “black annihilation initiative” narrative without the political context it deserves. This trapping may be symptomatic of what psychologists call “projection”.
Matthew, blackness is no re-discovery to Sudanese as the presence of arab influences in Sudan are to sudan watchers.
was the NCP foolhardy? brash? knee-jerked reaction? irresponsible? must be held accountable? tyrannical? brutal? yes to all. It goes to show that this government is fundamentally incapable of ruling Sudan. however, i suspect a project of ‘white man’ guilting pressured on northern sudanese (if i can use the term ‘white man’ as a way to describe the arab and black relationship that is evoked by the term “black darfuris”). Whether its intentional or not, the moral ascendancy leveraged by the west is the climate condition that is creating dissent and is further stifling a northern sudanese opposition that must learn to fight the ncp on its own. if this point is understood, you shall hear little quarrel with me, or others, about the clear militancy of the NCP, suffered mostly by we citizens of Sudan, but poignantly reminded by non-citizens.
The early to mid-90s social trajectory of isolation and brutal civil war (suffered mostly by southern Sudanese victims and casualties of war but also depriving other regions through state management diversion) was inevitably leading to the NCP’s terminated rule. Incidentally, the discovery of oil changed the almost certainty of revolution. In Africa, the rule is that natural resources are a curse, not a blessing. Once southern Sudan cuts its lines from the north, the NCP’s political machine will loose its oil and the ailing economy shall naturally destabilize a governing NCP. But as long as the system remains oiled and in peripheral political turbulence (to the glee of some analysts), you shan’t see this bulls eye civic struggle. There was a lot of optimism in Sudan prior to the CPA. We were about to see the NCP “govern” and measure their reforms (or lack of) against a clear backdrop of political order and rule.
Israel’s “targeted killing”? In a world of MadTV parodies on the new iRaq and iRan, that sort of “discussant’s” (non-critic’s, if youd like) euphemism might be funny. (the term assassination excepts the “Rightful” land’s policies by distracting us with imagery of clandestine laser-precision operations; all other “blood libels” notwithstanding ofcourse). Let’s hear more moral lessons from Palestine’s “experiences” and parallel it with Sudan’s?
“The question that post-war societies face is often whether to pursue justice, and possibly to sow bitterness and a sense of continuing community grievance, or to pursue peace in silence, at the potential cost of simmering tensions and feelings of unaddressed grievance.”
That is the European experience, Matthew. It has definitely sown “bitter” states. But there may be alternatives. I invite you to study the Rwandan, South African, and Zimbabwean models.

Best,

Jamaledin

Thanks for the input. I wanted to space and time out the post. There’s a lot I’d like to reply to.

Lets start with the NCP’s targeting of tribal groups. I’ve said before, and I’m not alone in this: the NCP targeted tribes. Yes. But not for the purposes of homogenization nor ethnic extermination. While that isn’t an explicit requirement for disqualifying the NCP’s campaign as a genocide (as per Geneva Convention definitions on genocide), the NCP’s objective remained politically motivated. Don’t misinterpret my views as an endorsement of the NCP. But until you tell me of a world where political conflicts are not intertwined with tribal polarization and mobilization, then the word genocide will fall on deaf ears in the majority Sudanese circles. “Societies [do] function best when people, good and bad, are seen to get what they are believed to deserve.” Well before that, we must first recognize the crimes committed. I’m not kidding when I say, most Sudanese know that there was no genocide. However, there are sufficient crimes that can see Elbashir fit for capital punishment. But that’s no way to approach a crisis that may need reform for comprehensive settlement. As I suggested before, these Islamists might need a way out. Prior to the warrant for Elbashir’s arrest, there were plausible rumors that he would giving up the presidency by not running in the elections. While Washington continues to narrowly focus on Elbashir (due to Zionist congressmen) what is missed is that Elbashir is the buffer. The true Islamists are his associates.

At this point, I am prone to believing the NCP’s version of 20,000 dying from violence related causes as the international community has settled with the figure of 200,000 dying from famine and disease-related causes. We Sudanese were equally skeptical when the word terrorism or “war on terrorism” became a catch (scare) phrase. Regime change or not, Sudanese will never designate a Darfur holocaust month. It isn’t a part of the consciousness of the opposition in Khartoum even! Matthew, there is a project of homogenizaton happening somewhere, not far from Sudan. Genocide is not so unsystematic or ambiguous there.

“the animosity toward Iran is much broader than that. For older Americans, it probably goes back to resentment over the humiliations inflicted during the hostage crisis. For younger Americans, it often has to do with Iran’s reputation for almost self-deceiving thuggery.”

I fear the user has opened a can of worms. Does the user really believe that all this language of hostility in the press has to do with the mere “thuggery” of Iran? And who is Iran threatening exactly? Does the threat of war, that we constantly read of, have to do with a “hostage” crisis from 1979? If only older Americans would recall the USS Liberty attacked by the IAF in a bid to escalate tensions in the region and launch the US into a war with the Arabs. Surely such “thuggery” couldn’t fail to equally drive up the drivel for war between the US and Israel. Democrat President Lydon Johnson squashed the “incident”. My point is: I would think that Iran’s “thuggery”, as a pretext for the U.S.’s disposition, is conveniently self-deceiving. Also, before submitting to the demonization of Iran, we must agree that Tehran was created by Eisenhower’s America, whether willfully or not is irrelevant. Enough with selective disregard for history. Ironically, Eisenhower was the first man to stand up to Israelis in telling them to leave Sinai. America is safer with Republicans in power, a theme you shall hear me talk of more in the coming paragraphs. The rest of the world may not be so lucky with Republicans, but it is certainly worse off with Democrats.

Matthew, it is Israel who beckons to go to war with Iran, for obvious reason. Iran remains ideologically and unshakably inimical to Israel. This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons anymore. And it was the Bush administration that prevented an attack from happening! The necons were not prepared to put America into war for Israel’s sake on this one. This is what I mean. Republicans might be irrational. But they are not crazy. Iran’s response of funding destabilizing operations (terrorist if you prefer) is a natural response to its perception of security threats posed by the invasion of Iraq and Aghanistan, which can be viewed as part of a broader policy that has seen America loose sight on its real national security interests, in Latin America, America’s forgotten “backyard”. It seems that only four-star generals sitting before congressional committees can make murmurs of discontentment, begging for a strategic rethinking of US foreign policy. Only Republicans can stand against suicide, unlike their euthanasia-prone counterparts.

I never said Israel is responsible for the US’s Africa policy. But Sudan is in no uncertain terms hostile to Israel and that will not change with any regime unless Palestinian sovereignty or citizenry is resolved. Similarly, depending on who Israel’s friends with, in the region, America follows. Sudanese are not as gullible or compliant as their gulf or Egyptian counterparts. The user mentioned the averseness of loathing the Israel lobby due to a lack of robust Arab lobbies; as if that were a sound reason in of itself to restore democratic integrity and accountability to a kleptocratic and morally bankrupt political machine that has become DC and its peripheral counties. But, the state department was not mentioned.

Once hailed as an African hero, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe has now been cornered as southern Africa’s story gone bad. In Zimbabwe there was no room for negotiation with white farmers. What? Do you believe the white farmers were going to leave quietly and forgo their wealth and property? This situation was escalated by defiance, obstinacy, and political maneuvering–on both sides. The media (i.e. BBC) strategized its selectively opaque and transparent reporting. Inevitably, it was going to lead to British interference, as most Zimbabwean white farmers are dual citizens. Mugabe cannot be defended entirely. He exploited the conflict to gain political favor. But how could it not be so? The UK pulled the EU into the mess and escalated the diplomatic and economic tensions. Zimbabweans are paying the price for this collective punishment when Mugabe was just protecting Zimbabwe’s sovereignty (whether done rightly or not is irrelevant). Everybody knows it but so called “liberals” who continue to deceive the 3rd world in thinking they actually care. It’s an argument I’ve heard many-a-time. “Yes, Zimbabweans needed the reform, but Mugabe consigned his citizens to death when he brutally administered his campaign”. Clever. What escapes the argument is the issue of “compliant negotiation” (or lack of) of the white farmers. What imaginative alternative scenarios would have seen a justifiable and just reversion of wealth? As I said before, liberals are dangerous. Conservatives, while also hegemonic, are very linear, and predictable. Liberals are fickle. And I say this to most immigrant populations who take solace with the progressives’ agenda of safeguarding their domestic de-segregationist concerns while flippantly paying heed to foreign policy.

“Iraqi insurgency have returned to Sudan and were in a position to use their expertise to conduct attacks within Sudan or to pass on their knowledge”

Matthew, like Darfur’s genocide, there is no such thing as ‘terrorism’ or a ‘war on terrorism’. This is a word that has eluded my circles for a long time. It does not exist in our discourse or perception. It’s a ruse. Live outside the US long enough and it will become apparent. No terrorist attacks have ever been conducted in Sudan by outsiders. The only “terrorizers” are the NCP. I’ll be the first to say, we should stay focused on that one. We don’t need the user to project hegemonic political misperceptions with Sudanese ones.

Kagame was funded and supported by the CIA. Kagame ignited the civil war and genocide. Kagame prevented American requests to intervene during the height of the genocide. Ironically, he is now being addressed as a problem child.

How long shall we remain at the mercy of the hegemony’s capriciousness and revolving-door penchant for fresh views, interns, analysts, and policies? Have “liberals” finally gotten sick of the war? Well then its time to pack up and leave! Just like that. Ten years later: Iran.

Best,

Jamaledin