Silence on darfur negotiations

by James Sat Oct 24, 2009 13:50

While I appreciate your concern for the people of Sudan, it is worth considering the situation and the language we use when writing about such conflicts.

The word “genocide”, despite its somewhat looser legal definition, conjures up images of the WW II holocaust or the slaughter in 1994 in Rwanda. As brutal as the conflict in Dafur is, there is nothing comparable to Eastern Europe from 1939-45 or Rwanda in 1994 happening there.

There is – or mostly was, as the fighting has decreased recently – a war between different groups of people living in Dafur and the Sudanese government has attempted to clamp down hard on the rebels seeking to reduce its power. This is hardly any different than any other government fighting in similar situation, e.g. the US in the American Civil War or the Free State in 1922-23.

While it necessary to decry the brutality of war, in particular the use of rape, it is essential to understand the background of any conflict in order to end it. People aren’t fighting for the fun of it, nor even for simple power.

The fighting in Dafur arose from many causes, not least a struggle for diminishing land and water resources as drought impinges on both pastoral and agricultural groups. A zero sum mentality – where a benefit to one group is seen as a defeat for another - has unfortunately taken hold and when military conflict creeps in, it is a mentality which is very hard to reverse.

There are also domestic political issues at play, including the continuation of a power struggle between the ruling party and its former ideologue al Turabi who is seen as a supporter of the rebels.

And of course, there are also foreign interests at play, especially by France and the United States. The former is engaged in a proxy war with Sudan via Chad and its backing for the rebels while the US has a long-standing policy of opposing the regime in Khartoum and probably would not be at all unhappy to see the country broken up in four or five states. Certainly they heavily backed the South in the civil war against Khartoum. France has a key national interest in securing Chad’s uranium supplies as nuclear power makes up some 80% of its electricity production.

Clearly the background reasons for the conflict do not mitigate the suffering of those on the ground. However, it is worth being cautiously accurate with language as western liberal imperialists such as Samantha Power (on Obama’s National Security Council) and Susan Rice (US ambassador to the UN), could well push through a direct military intervention on humanitarian grounds. They can only do this if public consciousness is supportive and that requires a long drip drip campaign. A quick look at Somalia in the 3 years since the US pushed Ethiopia to invade should illustrate the dire consequences of broadening the war.

Words like “genocide” are used in a campaign whose aim is to culminate in such an invasion. Given the very predictable dire consequences of an invasion, it is incumbent on proponents of the genocide claim to advance very strong evidence for their claims. The genocide is supposed to have been ongoing for some four years, but as yet none of the mass graves which were found in Eastern Europe after WWII or the masses of skeletons in Rwanda or even the graves of Yugoslavia have been uncovered.

Western powers could make a positive contribution by ceasing their current indirect military intervention and supporting investment that enables both sides in Dafur to make a living. Unfortunately, this is a very unlikely scenario.

Finally, the Department of Foreign Affairs has to talk to a lot of less than savoury people in its line of world. For instance, Ireland maintains diplomatic relations with the UK and the US despite their invasion and continuing occupation of two countries, which has resulted, at the very least, in tens of thousands of deaths. Mr Hilal and the Janjaweed are small potatoes compared to Messrs Bush and Blair.