posted June 28, 2004 10:07 AM            

Commentary:
World has ignored U.S. effort to save Sudan from genocide
By RICH LOWRY
Guest Commentary

THAT OLD well-meaning cliche "never again" might be due for retirement. It is what we tell ourselves after every massive slaughter, whether it's the Holocaust or Cambodia or Bosnia or Rwanda. Now, with a new genocide building in Sudan hard on the heels of the 10th anniversary of Rwanda — which brought pious expressions of regret that more wasn't done to stop the killing at the time — we are about to prove ourselves perfectly ready to accept "again."

Militias backed by the Sudanese government have forced roughly a million people from their homes in the western part of the country. In the North-South conflict that wracked Sudan for 20 years, the Muslim government's favored tool was genocide, directed against the Christian and animist South. The government is using genocide again, giving air cover and other support to Arab militias that are cleansing black Sufi Muslims from the western province of Darfur. The North-South war killed 2 million. At least 10,000 have died already in Darfur, and absent immediate relief, hundreds of thousands could die.

"The U.S. has done more than anyone else in Darfur, and the Bush administration has done more than any other administration about Sudan," says Nina Shea of the human-rights group Freedom House. The United States has pledged nearly $200 million in aid to the region. The European Union so far is kicking in a little more than $10 million — from all 25 countries in the EU combined. It is the United States that is pushing hard for a tough U.N. Security Council resolution that will call on the Sudanese government to end its support for violence and allow aid to flow into Darfur. This is consistent with the administration's history of involvement in Sudan.

Negotiations between the North and South had been bumping along ineffectually for years, until President Bush appointed former Sen. John Danforth — now the U.S. representative to the United Nations — as his special envoy to the country. High-level Bush officials were engaged in the peace talks on a daily basis, and finally a cease-fire was forged this May. The Sudanese government has repeatedly proven itself susceptible to international pressure throughout the years, which is why there is hope for Darfur — if only the world can be bothered to create the pressure.

There as yet is no "CNN effect" in Darfur, the sense of urgency that comes from international media attention. The press has mostly been AWOL, with the exception of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose searing reports have made him a one-man call-to-action. The Muslim world has reserved its outrage for the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, even though a spoonful of the same condemnation applied to Sudan could help save hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives. As for the United Nations, it recently welcomed Sudan onto the U.N. Human Rights Commission, where, with China and Cuba, it will have lots of nasty company.

Unfortunately, Sudan doesn't make natural fodder for Bush-bashers, or we might hear more about the issue. For the President's critics the word "diplomacy" means one thing — strong-arm Israel. And "multilateralism" tends to mean only appeasing France. So the administration's diplomatic achievement in Sudan might as well not exist, and its effort to muster other international actors, from the United Nations to Europe, behind a multilateral diplomatic and humanitarian aid initiative in Darfur is ignored. In this case, cries of "blood for oil" would have to be directed at China, which is obstructing diplomatic pressure on Sudan because of its oil business there — so, predictably, there are simply no cries of "blood for oil."

In Darfur people are being pushed from their homes and raped and brutalized by death squads, the so-called Janjaweed. They are huddled in makeshift camps that will become dens of death as the rainy season begins, if the Janjaweed isn't called off and if adequate humanitarian supplies aren't allowed to be delivered. If "never again" is to mean anything, it must mean something now.

posted June 28, 2004 10:52 AM              

and china, grrrrrr...

it's not much, but other than sending communications to senators and reps, here's an amnesty intn'l link for a few possible tactics: http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/sudan/actions.do

posted June 28, 2004 11:50 AM            

Where is the praise for the adminstration for this:

"The U.S. has done more than anyone else in Darfur, and the Bush administration has done more than any other administration about Sudan," says Nina Shea of the human-rights group Freedom House. The United States has pledged nearly $200 million in aid to the region. The European Union so far is kicking in a little more than $10 million — from all 25 countries in the EU combined. It is the United States that is pushing hard for a tough U.N. Security Council resolution that will call on the Sudanese government to end its support for violence and allow aid to flow into Darfur. This is consistent with the administration's history of involvement in Sudan. "

posted June 28, 2004 03:07 PM            

I think what's happening there is a travesty that needs to be stopped, however I'm sick of being the world police and then spat at by the French and the rest of the world for being that very thing, while they look on enviously doing everything they can behind the scenes to undermine us.

Send in the UN, replete with a contingent of French forces to take care of it.

posted June 29, 2004 10:45 AM              

i don't think the situation in Sudan is part of our "world-policeman" beat, but instead is a vital piece of the "war on terror". if you read the 911 Commission papers, Sudan stands out as one of the strongest centers for al Qaeda activity in the region. so, besides the civil war issues and all the health/human/political rights repurcussions from that - there's the necessity of following through in tracking terrorist cels.

but it's a mess, that's for sure.

and as for the french, looking at their history with conflict in Algeria, i can see why they would have counseled caution in jumping into conflict with a Muslim country. whether they are right or wrong, they are speaking from the experience of their people.

on another note, i drove through a Wal-Mart parking lot today and noticed TWO "Boycott France" bumper stickers. that people would boycott French products and buy crap made in China (therefore supporting Communism) is beyond me.

posted June 29, 2004 03:59 PM            

Stopping Genocide isn't part of the war on terror IMO, even if it is taking place in a country that is known for harboring terrorists. Killing terrorists and the mechanisms that allow terrorists to thrive is. Stopping Genocide is something the UN needs to handle. Unfortunately, more and more as time goes on, the UN shows itself to be the ineffectual farce that it is. What is it there for, except to give powerless nations with a Napoleon complex a false sense of power.

The UN is the Emperor with no clothes, and I hope it doesn't take too long for the populace to see it for what it is.

However, once the UN again shows itself to be the bloviating, impotent organization that it is, I suppose we'll have to do something about it because we're the good guys. That's fine. I no more want to see your average Sudanese die than my neighbors die, but I'm weary of the price we pay for being forced into being the World Police Force.

posted July 29, 2004 01:14 PM            

Thursday, July 29, 2004
U.N. Fights U.S. as Arabs Set Sudanese on Fire

The Associated Press had two fascinating articles today. They're especially fascinating when juxtaposed.

"The United States dropped the word 'sanctions' from a draft U.N. resolution on Sudan on Thursday in the face of opposition on the Security Council, but it retained a threat of economic action against Khartoum if it fails to disarm Arab militias in Darfur."

posted July 29, 2004 02:33 PM              

On the one hand, we have U.N. Security Council "councilling" the US to drop the word "Sanctions" from a draft resolution on the Sudan situation, because they feel that this would be too heavy-handed at this point.

Then, on the other hand, we have Arab militia-men chaining people together and lighting them on fire to kill them without having to waste any ammunition on them! And 10s of thousands have been killed already, with the support and protection of the Sudanese Government - but.... the UN doesn't think heavy-handed resolutions are in order?!?!?!? What on earth WOULD warrent heavy-handed resolutions? That's what I would like to know.

It seems to me, the only UN members who actually take human rights seriously are the western anglo-saxon nations, most especially the US. No wonder al-Qaeda has marked the US for death! It stands in the way of their scheme for world domination, and enslavement of every non-Islam in it.

posted July 31, 2004 12:15 AM              

As for what is happening in the Sudan - all I can say is my prayers go out to the people affected by the horror there and my heartfelt hope that it will end soon.

Blessings to all.

posted July 31, 2004 11:48 AM              

By GREG AUSTIN and BEN KOPPELMAN
Friday, July 30, 2004 - Page A13


The Sudanese government has carried out a murderous campaign in its Darfur region through deliberate bombing of civilian targets and through support of Arab militias known as janjaweed raping and killing on the ground. Khartoum cannot be trusted to end the killing, though it may see some temporary gain in slowing or pausing it.

Yet current international measures seem to depend on the Sudanese government as a partner. The United States has proposed a draft UN Security Council resolution calling on Khartoum to stop the violence in Darfur, to impose an arms embargo on the janjaweed and to arrest janjaweed leaders.

In addition, the U.S. is supporting the African Union's monitoring of the ceasefire and its role in restarting talks for a political solution. Yet the Sudanese government is saying that the AU will do or can do nothing without Sudan's consent. It remains an open question whether the AU will be prepared to override this taboo of non-intervention without Sudan's consent.

To end the violence, the UN, the major powers and countries such as Canada must understand that the government they are dealing with is a dictatorship that has directly sponsored terrorist attacks and harboured Osama bin Laden. This government has been subjected several times, usually unsuccessfully, to UN sanctions or unilateral U.S. sanctions.

Despite repeated promises by Sudan to disarm the militias -- including one to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in June -- they continue to kill with impunity. And some of those being "disarmed" are reportedly being absorbed into government police and paramilitary forces operating in Darfur. Given the current extent of the proliferation of arms in Darfur, an arms embargo seems equally futile.

Ultimately, it is government officials who are responsible for the murderous campaigns in Darfur. Until their calculus of political gain is specifically targeted, the violence will not stop. These officials should be publicly named and shamed, and be subjected to personal sanctions, such as freezing bank accounts or banning international travel. Simultaneously, the major powers or the UN should form a working group to document and publicize the war crimes in Darfur quickly and authoritatively.

In the short term, it is paramount that there is a ceasefire. But the two previous ceasefires (September of 2003 and April of 2004) did not hold. This suggests another ceasefire would be of no value unless supported by other firm measures.

First, the AU ceasefire monitoring team must be more robust in terms of troops as well as logistical support, especially transport and satellite communications. Darfur is a vast and remote region (as big as France), has a low population density (one-10th that in Rwanda), and has few transport links.

Second, the mandate of the AU troops to protect the monitors should be extended. Their duties must go beyond observing to include protecting refugees and disarming militias, a measure that Mr. Annan identified in 2001 as a necessary adjunct to any UN peacekeeping deployment.

But a necessary condition for diplomacy to succeed is the threat of international military action, especially since the sanctions against Sudan in the late 1990s were not effective. The only way to demonstrate the seriousness of such resolve would be through the contribution of troops from non-Western countries, particularly African and Arab states. A force led by, or even containing troops from, the U.S. or Britain may be out of the question.

Along with threats, there must be incentives. An effective way to end attacks by the militias and their opponents may be to offer cash incentives to them, or communities that support them, to stop fighting. (This worked in Mozambique.) The international community should also provide emergency funds for quick-effect projects to revamp the regional infrastructure.

In the past 12 to 18 months, the UN and major powers have avoided dealing decisively with the Darfur conflict because they did not want to disturb peace talks to end the civil war between the government and rebels in the south of the country. But there has to be some recognition -- based on the Darfur events -- that the Sudanese government may not be a reliable partner in that longer-standing negotiation process. It is now open to serious question whether that peace process can be saved in the absence of a political process across Sudan as a whole, in which all rebel groups and marginalized communities can participate.

It has taken a long time for the international community to act despite being aware of Khartoum's murderous campaign against non-Arab tribes in Darfur, at least as early as September of 2003. The international community must act without delay. The Security Council cannot allow more time to see whether Sudan will fulfill its pledges because this only provides more time for more atrocities to be committed or for Khartoum to manipulate ceasefires for its own murderous purposes.

Direct, tangible and imminent threats -- combined judiciously with incentives -- and targeted at the Sudanese leadership and Arab militia leaders are needed now to end the violence.

Greg Austin is director of research at the London-based Foreign Policy Centre. Ben Koppelman is a research officer there.

posted June 05, 2006 11:08 PM            

Let's all get involved however we can even if it's just writing letters to our Senators and Representatives. Get the word out. There are many, many horrible things happening in the world today, I know. But this is outrageously inexcusable, unjustifiable by any far reaches of the imagination, and 100% unacceptable. We swore it would never happen again.

posted June 06, 2006 12:00 AM            

Laying aside the fact the UN has proved to be totally ineffective..in Rwanda, in Serbia/Kosovo and every place else around the world. The fact those genocides started small and could have been put out by prompt and uncompromising action is an indication of dithering, handwringing and talking problems to death instead of dealing with them.

So, do you want Bush to pick up the phone and tell the Prime Minister/President of Sudan to put an end to it within 10 days, 20 days, 30 days...or else?

Trust me, these people have no fear of UN action. The UN Human Rights Council just elected Cuba, communist China and Russia to the Council. Sudan has nothing to fear from the UN. Not direct military action approved by the UN Security Council or sanctions. All through the Iraq sanction period, China, Russia, France and others were violating the sanctions and I doubt the UN Security Council would vote sanctions against Sudan. Not with these nations sitting on the current Security Council...China, Russia, Republic of the Congo, Ghana, and Tanzania

Neither is the African Union going to save the day. By the time the UN or the African Union or African nations in general get around to actually doing anything, there won't be anyone left to save.

posted June 06, 2006 10:43 PM            

The UN couldn't even agree to call what's been going on and is still going on in Sudan a genocide.

Tuesday June 6, 6:22 PM
UN Security Council to discuss Darfur with Sudan leaders

KHARTOUM (AFP) - A UN Security Council delegation is to begin an African tour with high-level talks with Sudanese officials in Khartoum aimed at paving the way for a deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

The delegation, in Khartoum for the first time, hopes to persuade Sudanese leaders to accept a UN peacekeeping mission to replace the current under-manned African Union force in the war-torn western region of Darfur.

The delegation was on Tuesday due to meet senior Sudanese officials, including President Omar el-Beshir, Vice President Ali Mohammed Taha and former southern rebel leader and current Foreign Minister Lam Akol.

Some Sudanese officials are reported to be standing firm against such a change, equating the possible arrival of a UN force with a Western attempt to recolonize the country.

The tour will also be visiting Chad, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as carry out regional visits within Sudan, including to Darfur.

Civil war and a humanitarian crisis in Darfur have left 180,000 to 300,000 people dead and 2.4 million people displaced since February 2003.

The visit comes at a crucial time for Darfur, following the signing of a May 5 peace deal in Abuja but to which only one rebel faction agreed before a deadline to agree to the document expired at the end of May.

posted June 14, 2006 10:33 PM            

******

U.N-backed court documents Darfur deaths By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 14, 5:53 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N.-backed court probing war crimes in Darfur has documented thousands of civilian deaths, hundreds of alleged rapes and a "significant number" of massacres that killed hundreds of people at once, the top prosecutor said Wednesday.

Many witnesses and victims have reported that three ethnic groups in particular — the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa — had been singled out for attack in Darfur, Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in a report to the Security Council.

Those details are among the strongest indication so far that Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor with the International Criminal Court, has uncovered substantial evidence of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

"In most of the incidents ... there are eyewitness accounts that the perpetrators made statements reinforcing the targeted nature of the attacks, such as 'we will kill all the black' and 'we will drive you out of this land,'" his report said.

A special U.N. investigative commission concluded in January, 2005 that crimes against humanity had occurred in Darfur, where some 180,000 people have died as a result of violence that flared in 2003. Three months later, the Security Council charged the Hague-based ICC, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, with prosecuting those behind the slaughter.

In his briefing to the council, Moreno-Ocampo said Sudan's national courts have shown little desire to investigate crimes against humanity in Darfur, despite Khartoum's claims that they should pursue those allegations.

One of Sudan's courts, for example, has held just six trials of less than 30 people — and they were charged with robbery, possessing weapons without a license and receiving stolen goods. Only two faced allegations of murder and one of rape.

Moreno-Ocampo presented the findings to the Security Council as clear evidence that his work is justified. Sudan has repeatedly insisted that there's no need for his prosecutors to get involved in Darfur,

"The president of the special court has stated that no cases involving serious violations of international humanitarian law were ready for trial," Moreno-Ocampo said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614/ap_on_re_af/un_sudan_darfur

posted June 15, 2006 12:25 AM            

Consular Section
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan
1729 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel. 202-333-4735

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 07/10/02) - Since President Bush appointed former Senator of Missouri, John C. Danforth, the latter has successfully achieved the following:-

- Caused the two principle parties to the conflict to agree on a process in the Nuba Mountains which realized peace in that region for the first time in two decades. Thousands of people have returned to their homes in the area. Just three weeks ago, the agreement was renewed for another six months.

- A deal was reached to protect civilians on both sides of the conflict.
- An international commission to monitor any attacks on civilians was formed and it has begun its duties in the country.
- Based on Danforth’s proposal, the Government of Sudan allowed an eminent group headed by an American to investigate allegations of slavery and abduction – it was given unfettered access to different parts of Sudan.

Again, and due to Senator Danforth’s efforts and those of the current Administration, the ongoing session of negotiations between the Sudan Government and the rebel movement in Nairobi under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), is the most promising in the last twenty years.

The logical and moral reaction of those who claimed to be concerned about the plight of the Sudanese people must be joy and encouragement to this peace process. Skepticism is understandable and action is the true test. But unhelpful measures to undermine the process should be avoided. It is a mistake to:-
1) Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the so-called Sudan Peace Act that will support and encourage those in the rebel movement who wish to continue its war campaign.
2) Pressure the Administration to abandon its even-handed approach that contributed to the above-mentioned positive results.
U.S. policy towards Sudan pursued by the previous Administration was shaped by fabricated reports, bad intelligence and individual agendas. For the sake of peace for 35 million Sudanese people, we urge the U.S. Congress to base its vision toward Sudan on the positive achievements of this Administration and not on passion of zealots and believers in the clash of civilizations.

A just and durable peace remains to be built. Those in this country who seriously want to contribute to such a peace must understand the complexities of both North and South. To obtain that knowledge, we urge members of Congress, their staff and journalists to go to the Sudan.

posted June 15, 2006 12:33 AM            

Consular Section
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan
1729 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel. 202-333-4735

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 07/19/02) - Accompanying the First Vice-President, Mr. Ali Taha, on official visits to India and Indonesia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Mustafa Ismail, held successful meetings with his Indian counterpart.

As a result of the discussions, both ministers reiterated their two nations’ commitment against terrorism. They pledged to co-operate fully with the international community in its legitimate war against terrorism. Dr. Mustafa reiterated Sudan’s condemnation of all forms of terrorism.

He emphasized, “We will hold back no efforts to fight this dangerous menace”. He added,”Have no doubt about that.”
http://www.sudanembassy.org/default.asp?page=viewstory&id=108

posted June 15, 2006 12:38 AM            

An Argument Against Calling Darfur Violence Genocide

Consular Section
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan
1729 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel. 202-333-4735

National Public Radio
May 15, 2006 from Talk of the Nation

NEAL CONAN, host: On Mondays we turn to the TALK OF THE NATION Opinion Page.

To call something genocide is controversial. To say that what's happening in Darfur is not genocide may be even more controversial.

Michael Clough is a former Director of the Africa Program at the Council on Foreign Relations. In Sunday's Current section of The Los Angeles Times, he wrote that calling the crisis in Darfur genocide is not only inaccurate, but counterproductive.

So is it
genocide or not? Why is that word important? If you have questions about Darfur and genocide, give us a call: 800-989-8255. That's 800-989-TALK. The e-mail address is talk@npr.org.

Michael Clough is also the author of Free at Last: the United States Policy Toward Africa and the End of the Cold War. He joins us now from the studios of member station KALW in San Francisco. And thanks very much for being with us today.

Mr. MICHAEL CLOUGH (Author; Former Director of the Africa Program, Council on Foreign Relations): Thanks for having me.

CONAN: First of all, as you point out in your piece, the word genocide has legal implications.

Mr. CLOUGH: Right. The word genocide's actually a very precise legal term that refers to the intent to wipe out, either in whole or part, a particular ethnic, religious, racial, group. I want to be clear in saying that I don't think that Darfur is genocide, as the piece makes clear. That's not saying that I don't think
it's a horrific pattern of human rights abuses that demands a very serious response. In fact, part of the argument I'm making there is that we shouldn't have to call it genocide in order to try to mobilize people to act.

But calling it genocide really runs against what the actual legal definition of genocide is, and it's for that reason that very few, if any, of the major human rights organizations have actually come out and called it genocide. It's been mainly politicians and activists that have adopted that label because they think it'll mobilize the public.

CONAN: Well, among them is the United States government. And the way it is usually portrayed--it is that, of course, all of these people are African but we're using different distinctions here, that basically Arab tribesmen and this militia known as the Janjaweed, which works in conjunction with the Sudanese government, has been unleashed on African villagers, partly because they support a rebellion,
partly for various other reasons. But why doesn't that qualify for genocide?

Mr. CLOUGH: Well, you said partly because they support a rebellion. I don't think it's partly because they support a rebellion; I think what's going on in Darfur is a very brutal counter-insurgency campaign directed against the villages that support the rebels.

I--there's clearly been animosities over time between Arabs and Africans, but in western Sudan, which is where Darfur is, there hasn't been this history of ethnic conflict. In fact, Alex de Waal, one of the people who knows the region best, has written about, you know, sort of the long-standing malleable nature of ethnic and other boundary lines there. There wasn't, as in Rwanda or in other places that we think of as being heavily conflicted ethnically, a long history of ethnic tension.

It's much more political. It's much more directed towards the fact that the government there, just as it tried to do in the
south and other parts of the country when it was facing an insurgency, has gone after the sea in which the rebels swim.

CONAN: And, as you say, the tactics are quite similar to what happened in southern Sudan during that very, very long conflict.

Mr. CLOUGH: Yeah, and two million people may have died in southern Sudan, which is part of my point is that by focusing on genocide we may be missing the fact that what we need to be responding to are gross human rights abuses, not to the labeling of a conflict as a genocide. And, as I say in the article, there are also other reasons why I think it’s particularly problematic to choose that label.

CONAN: Well, one of the things you fear is that the use of the word genocide will, in fact, exacerbate tensions between the Arabs and the Africans who, at the end of the day, have to live together.

Mr. CLOUGH: Exactly. I mean, it's a mistake to believe that the Arab population, the Arab nomads and
other groups that I identify with the Arab government in that region, aren't going to go away. They're going to be there, and peace in Darfur is going to require those population groups to come together. By declaring it a genocide, you've already set up a categorization that is going to make it hard for any of those groups to begin to sort of move beyond.

I think that we ought to focus on the real perpetrators of the human rights abuses, which is the government of Sudan, not on some ethnic categorization. And there, as I mention in the article, one of the examples of the dangers of genocide rhetoric is what's going on in Rwanda. The--in Rwanda we had what was clearly a genocide. I don't think there's anybody that disputes that. But now we have a situation in which the government that came to power after that genocide, which is a minority government, basically uses genocide rhetoric to carry out--as Human Rights Watch has documented--an incredibly repressive
political strategy.

And so, once again, I mean, we've got to be careful of what the consequences of the rhetoric we use are.

CONAN: Would ethnic cleansing be a more appropriate term?

Mr. CLOUGH: Well I--Human Rights Watch--and I should be clear, I don't speak for Human Rights Watch anymore, I'm now a private attorney. I worked for Human Rights Watch for nine months on an interim basis during part of the Darfur debate. Human Rights Watch called it ethnic cleansing. Personally, I'm not even sure ethnic cleansing makes sense in the context. I think, as I said, I think it's a brutal counter-insurgency campaign.

We've seen other counter-insurgency efforts. We could look at the situation in Angola, or quite frankly, look at Vietnam. People forget, a million people died--a million civilians died in the Vietnam conflict. Many of them as a result of U.S. activities designed to eliminate the villages and hamlets and the support that was coming from the
peasants for the Viet Cong.

So I--once again, I think it's--I would much rather focus on getting out of the naming game and also this even more important problem is if we're going to prevent genocide, or prevent gross human rights abuses, however we call them, what we've got to do is develop the capacity to respond early on in the cycle of conflict. One of the problems with genocide is that by the time something reaches the level at which there's even a genocide debate, it's already too late to prevent much of the suffering.

And so I think we need, in a sense, a coalition to prevent human rights abuses as much as we need a coalition to stop genocide.

CONAN: Michael Clough is on the TALK OF THE NATION Opinion Page today. He's written an Op-Ed piece in The Los Angeles Times that argues that the use of the word genocide, as it relates to Darfur, is both inaccurate and counter- productive.

This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

And let's
get a listener involved. John(ph) is with us on the phone line. 800- 989-8255 if you'd like to join us. John's in Jacksonville, Florida.

JOHN (Caller): Hi. I have a--first a statement and then a question for Mr. Clough. The word ethnic cleansing reminds me too much of an Orwellian term. It's basically newspeak--it's making a word, genocide, into something that's a little bit more palatable. And I was first alarmed in Bosnia when ethnic cleansing was used instead of genocide, and also in Rwanda I remember ethnic cleansing being used.

I'm wondering--I mean, as far as I know, the term genocide is a systematic elimination of a race. Under the U.N. Charter, it's also my understanding that they are mandated to intervene if genocide is taking place. So I'm wondering, is this actually a systematic extermination of a race by another race? Is it genocide, and if it is, wouldn't the U.N. be mandated to intervene and stop it?

Mr. CLOUGH: John, that's an excellent
question. In fact, you've actually gone right to the heart of the problem with the use of the term genocide in this context.

One, it's now been, what, 20 months since people started to begin to call Darfur genocide. They did begin to call it, for exactly the reasons you've-- genocide for exactly the reasons you cited. They thought it would mandate the international community to respond. The international community hasn't responded that way.

So, in a funny way, one of the unfortunate lessons of this debate is that you created a public consensus called a genocide, and you established that the international community won't respond in the way that it is theoretically mandated to do. In fact, one of the great ironies is that the same day that Colin Powell said that the State Department had found that it was genocide, he also said, well, but it won't really change the direction of U.S. policy. And U.S. policy continues to be a much more nuanced policy than you
would expect in response to genocide.

Now, to go back to the question, I don't think that what's going on there is a systematic attempt to eliminate the African population. I think it's a systematic attempt to defeat the insurgency and the rebels, and that the solution is ultimately as we're seeing now, a political solution. Once there's either a political settlement or a change in government, I don't think that this is going to be a continuing conflict between Arabs and Africans, which is what the term genocide implies.

CONAN: John, thanks very much for the call.

JOHN: Thank you.

CONAN: Another thing you pointed out was that Darfur came to a lot of people’s attention, not to say that it wasn't happening earlier, about the same time as the 10th Anniversary of Rwanda, and indeed, this was, in some people’s minds, the new Rwanda…

Mr. CLOUGH: Right.

CONAN: …what was going on now. But even in Rwanda, where obviously things happened a
lot quicker, but in Rwanda, that was clearly genocide and the international community did nothing about that either.

Mr. CLOUGH: Exactly. And that period in time I think is actually very instructive. I mean one of the reasons that I'm so concerned about the mischaracterization is that there's been a boom-bust cycle in activism concerned with Africa. And what people now forget is that the main reason the United States was so slow to respond in Rwanda, to what was clearly genocide, was because of the disaster in Somalia.

In December of 1992, the old Bush administration made what was a generally applauded decision to intervene in Somalia. As we know, it turned out to be a disaster, (unintelligible) debate over why. But then the Clinton administration was forced to pull out of Somalia. Somalia is now--in fact, Somalia is coming back into the news this week because of continuing fighting. There's no state there.

In that case, you had this exact same
phenomenon. The activists rallied to humanitarian intervention in Somalia. It created a set of consequences that no one was prepared for. And when it came to Rwanda, people forget, Madeleine Albright basically used Rwanda to send the message that the Clinton administration was not going to embark on dangerous foreign adventures. And so when we get these sorts of rallies we've got to be careful about what the long- term consequences are going to be.

CONAN: Michael Clough, thanks very much.

Mr. CLOUGH: Thank you.

CONAN: Michael Clough's Op-Ed appeared in The Los Angeles Times. His, and all the previous stories in this series, are linked at the TALK OF THE NATION page at npr.org.

Michael Clough, former director of the Africa Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

posted June 15, 2006 12:47 AM            

Consular Section
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan
1729 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel. 202-333-4735

By Alan J. Kuperman
New York Times
Published: May 31, 2006
Austin, Tex.
THOUSANDS of Americans who wear green wristbands and demand military intervention to stop Sudan's Arab government from perpetrating genocide against black tribes in Darfur must be perplexed by recent developments.

Without such intervention, Sudan's government last month agreed to a peace accord pledging to disarm Arab janjaweed militias and resettle displaced civilians. By contrast, Darfur's black rebels, who are touted by the wristband crowd as freedom fighters, rejected the deal because it did not give them full regional control. Put simply, the rebels were willing to let genocide continue against their own people rather than compromise their demand for power.

International mediators were shamefaced. They had presented the plan as take it or leave it, to compel Khartoum's acceptance. But now the ostensible representatives of the victims were balking. Embarrassed American officials were forced to ask Sudan for further concessions beyond the ultimatum that it had already accepted.

Fortunately, Khartoum again acquiesced. But two of Darfur's three main rebel groups still rejected peace. Frustrated American negotiators accentuated the positive — the strongest rebel group did sign — and expressed hope that the dissenters would soon join.

But that hope was crushed last week when the rebels viciously turned on each other. As this newspaper reported, "The rebels have unleashed a tide of violence against the very civilians they once joined forces to protect."

Seemingly bizarre, this rejection of peace by factions claiming to seek it is actually revelatory. It helps explain why violence originally broke out in Darfur, how the Save Darfur movement unintentionally poured fuel on the fire, and what can be done to stanch genocidal violence in Sudan and elsewhere.
Darfur was never the simplistic morality tale purveyed by the news media and humanitarian organizations.

The region's blacks, painted as long-suffering victims, actually were the oppressors less than two decades ago — denying Arab nomads access to grazing areas essential to their survival. Violence was initiated not by Arab militias but by the black rebels who in 2003 attacked police and military installations.

The most extreme Islamists are not in the government but in a faction of the rebels sponsored by former Deputy Prime Minister Hassan al-Turabi, after he was expelled from the regime. Cease-fires often have been violated first by the rebels, not the government, which has pledged repeatedly to admit international peacekeepers if the rebels halt their attacks.

This reality has been obscured by Sudan's criminally irresponsible reaction to the rebellion: arming militias to carry out a scorched-earth counterinsurgency. These Arab forces, who already resented the black tribes over past land disputes and recent attacks, were only too happy to rape and pillage any village suspected of supporting the rebels.

In light of janjaweed atrocities, it is natural to romanticize the other side as freedom fighters. But Darfur's rebels do not deserve that title. They took up arms not to stop genocide — which erupted only after they rebelled — but to gain tribal domination.

The strongest faction, representing the minority Zaghawa tribe, signed the sweetened peace deal in hopes of legitimizing its claim to control Darfur. But that claim is vehemently opposed by rebels representing the larger Fur tribe. Such internecine disputes only recently hit the headlines, but the rebels have long wasted resources fighting each other rather than protecting their people.

Advocates of intervention play down rebel responsibility because it is easier to build support for stopping genocide than for becoming entangled in yet another messy civil war. But their persistent calls for intervention have actually worsened the violence.

The rebels, much weaker than the government, would logically have sued for peace long ago. Because of the Save Darfur movement, however, the rebels believe that the longer they provoke genocidal retaliation, the more the West will pressure Sudan to hand them control of the region. Sadly, this message was reinforced when the rebels' initial rejection of peace last month was rewarded by American officials' extracting further concessions from Khartoum.

The key to rescuing Darfur is to reverse these perverse incentives. Spoiler rebels should be told that the game is over, and that further resistance will no longer be rewarded but punished by the loss of posts reserved for them in the peace agreement.
Ultimately, if the rebels refuse, military force will be required to defeat them. But this is no job for United Nations peacekeepers. Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia show that even the United States military cannot stamp out Islamic rebels on their home turf; second-rate international troops would stand even less chance.

Rather, we should let Sudan's army handle any recalcitrant rebels, on condition that it eschew war crimes. This option will be distasteful to many, but Sudan has signed a peace treaty, so it deserves the right to defend its sovereignty against rebels who refuse to, so long as it observes the treaty and the laws of war.

Indeed, to avoid further catastrophes like Darfur, the United States should announce a policy of never intervening to help provocative rebels, diplomatically or militarily, so long as opposing armies avoid excessive retaliation. This would encourage restraint on both sides. Instead we should redirect intervention resources to support "people power" movements that pursue change peacefully, as they have done successfully over the past two decades in the Philippines, Indonesia, Serbia and elsewhere.

America, born in revolution, has a soft spot for rebels who claim to be freedom fighters, including those in Darfur. But to reduce genocidal violence, we must withhold support for the cynical provocations of militants who bear little resemblance to our founders.
Alan J. Kuperman, an assistant professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, is an editor of "Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Hazard, Rebellion and Civil War."
http://www.sudanembassy.org/default.asp?page=viewstory&id=475

posted June 15, 2006 06:28 PM              

I dont know or understand why there isn't much media attention on this situation. I hear about mass murder, rape...and genocide, but dont hear or see much about things in the news...and dont see anything really being done about it...maybe that's why I dont hear much.

posted June 21, 2006 07:10 PM            

Sudan's president, vowing to never allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur, blamed "Jewish organizations" for pushing for their deployment.

President Omar al-Bashir made the assertion on Tuesday while a joint United Nations and African Union team was in Sudan to plan for a large U.N. force to take over peacekeeping in Darfur from the AU's poorly equipped 7,000 troops who have been unable to halt more than three years of violence.

President Bush, who has called for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping in Darfur, reiterated Wednesday that he viewed the government-backed attacks on civilians there as genocide.

"I declared Darfur to be a genocide because I care deeply about those who have been afflicted by these renegade bands of people who are raping and murdering," Bush said in Vienna at a news conference with Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel and European Union President Jose Manual Barroso.

The U.S. and Europe have been pushing for the quick deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur.

"This shall never take place," al-Bashir told reporters at a news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki on Tuesday. "These are colonial forces and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country," he said in his strongest rejection yet of a U.N. peacekeeping role in Darfur.

"They want to colonize Africa, starting with the first sub-Saharan country to gain its independence. If they want to start colonization in Africa, let them choose a different place."

A day earlier, al-Bashir said he would personally lead the "resistance" to such a force if it came.

Sudan already has 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers in its south, where they are helping to implement a January 2005 peace agreement that ended a separate conflict - more than 20 years of civil war between the north and the south of the country.

When journalists pressed al-Bashir on his objection to U.N. troops in Darfur, he replied: "It is clear that there is a purpose behind the heavy propaganda and media campaigns" for international intervention in Darfur.
"If we return to the last demonstrations in the United States, and the groups that organized the demonstrations, we find that they are all Jewish organizations."

Rallies in Washington and several other U.S. cities in April drew thousands of demonstrators protesting against atrocities in Darfur and attracted celebrity speakers such as actor George Clooney as well as politicians.

Nearly 200,000 people have died, many of them from hunger and disease, since members of ethnic African tribes rose in revolt against the Arab-led Khartoum government in early 2003. Some 2 million people have been displaced. The government is accused of responding by unleashing Arab militias known as the janjaweed who have been accused of the worst atrocities, but it denies any involvement.

After Sudan's government signed a peace agreement with the main Darfur rebel group May 5, it gave some indications it might allow a U.N. force. The Sudan Liberation Movement, the rebel group that signed, said it wanted the U.N. peacekeepers.

But al-Bashir's government has since backtracked, saying the Darfur conflict should be dealt with by Africans. Tuesday's comments were the president's most direct rejection.

Officials and tribal leaders have often stirred up public opposition by painting the force as colonialist or prompted by Jewish or Israeli pressure.

"As far as security is concerned, I think they are the most capable forces," Mohammed Eltijani Eltayeb of the Sudan Liberation Movement told The Associated Press on Wednesday in The Hague, where he was attending Dutch-hosted talks on reconstruction.

A leading government opponent, Hassan Turabi, has said the government opposes the United Nations in Darfur because the world body has vowed to prosecute all those involved in war crimes.

"They are afraid of the U.N.'s efficiency. The government fears that too many of its allies will end up in an international criminal court," said Turabi, who is believed to be influential with one of the Darfur rebel groups.

Last week, a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court reported to the Security Council that a "significant number" of massacres, in which hundreds of people were killed at a time, had occurred in Darfur and certain tribes had been singled out for attack but Sudan's courts had shown little desire to investigate crimes against humanity.