Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Dangers of Misunderstanding Sudan: Muslims Seek Voice in Darfur Demonstrations
Although American Muslim leaders have spoken out vociferously against the atrocities in Darfur, there were no Muslim groups or speakers listed in the rally program at last weekend’s "Rally to Stop Genocide" in Darfur that took place in Washington D.C. This prompts speculation that there is an agenda of exclusion at work to present a distorted picture of the Muslim role in the Darfur crisis.
At the last minute, organizers had to scramble to find someone - anyone - who was either Sudanese or Muslim to speak at the rally when Sudanese immigrants realized that the announced speakers included eight Western Christians, seven Jews, four politicians and assorted celebrities - but no Muslims and no one from Darfur
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other American Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, are members of the coalition. But no representative from these, or any Muslim coalition member, was allowed to speak.
Indeed, there is a hidden agenda in the efforts of some of those putting Darfur on the radar of Americans - several of them, in fact. Pro-Israel groups, Christian Zionists and neocons paint the Darfur situation as Arabs against Africans. This helps them in their efforts to paint all Arabs/Muslims as terrorists. And by labeling the conflict as genocide, they both deflect attention from Israel's mass murder of Palestinians and make the Arabs look just as bad as the Israelis.
There are strategy issues involved also. According to a book published by the Dayan Institute for Middle East and Africa Studies called "Israel and the Sudanese Liberation Movement," Israel long ago adopted a strategy which they call 'pulling the limbs, then cutting them off.' What this policy entails is the building of bridges with minority groups in various countries, pulling them out of the nationalist context and then "encouraging" them to separate.
Tel Aviv hoped that this strategy would inevitably weaken the Arab world, break it down and threaten its interests at the same time. In order for this strategy to work, Mossad agents opened lines of communication and connections with the Kurds in Iraq, Maronites in Lebanon and southerners in Sudan. Now they're trying it with Darfurians.
Arab American Institute President James Zogby did speak out forcefully at the rally against the ongoing atrocities in Darfur. Zogby, who said he represented Arab Americans of all religious affiliations at the rally, demanded "that action be taken now to stop the killing from all sides and protect the wounded people of Darfur."
"It is unfortunate that the Save Darfur Coalition chose not to list any mainstream American Muslim groups in the rally program," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "This disturbing omission calls into question the coalition's true agenda at the rally."
The violence in Darfur has been perpetrated upon villages by government sponsored militias and the rebels and has produced more than 1.3 million internally displaced refugees. Peace talks between the warring parties have been going on for two years.
Two Jewish groups - the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum - that founded the Save Darfur Coalition organized Sunday’s rally. They say they have been particularly appalled by the atrocities in Darfur. "Determined to make ‘never again’ not just a meaningless cliche, they have taken a leading role in anti-genocide advocacy and education," according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
That would be admirable, except the exclusivism with which they went about this rally intimates that something other than altruism is going on here.
Sadly, many of those clamoring for harsh measures against Sudan's government have innocently bought the pro-Israel propaganda on Sudan and betray a misunderstanding of the causes for the conflict. As Emily Wax wrote in the Washington Post:
"Although analysts have emphasized the racial and ethnic aspects of the conflict in Darfur, a long-running political battle between Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir and radical Islamic cleric Hassan al-Turabi may be more relevant." Al-Turabi and Bashir are political rivals. Al-Turabi, though sequestered in his villa, actively stimulates anti-government uprisings. Wax quotes a Sudanese human rights worker: "Darfur is simply the battlefield for a power struggle over Khartoum," said Ghazi Suleiman. "That's why the government hit back so hard. They saw al-Turabi's hand, and they want to stay in control of Sudan at any cost."
Wax also pointed out that nearly everyone is Muslim, everyone is black, it's all about politics, the conflict is international and the 'genocide' label made it worse.
The differences in Darfur are largely between lifestyles: the sedentary versus the nomadic peoples (from among whom the notorious Janjaweed come). The difference between Arabs and non-Arabs is also ethno-linguistic.
Whatever the cause of the divisions, mass murder and displacement are wrong. For activists and analysts to work on this, however, they need to grasp the basic issues. Mischaracterizing the causes can be regressive. The call for divestment from Sudan, for instance, though well-intentioned for some, is a mistaken approach.
The Muslim members of the Save Darfur Coalition this week reiterated their concern for the crisis in Darfur. The joint statement stresses that the humanitarian workers on the ground have warned the international community and the region that politicizing the Darfur conflict will ultimately result in more suffering and will endanger more civilians.
The organizations have requested a meeting with President Bush and Secretary Rice. The organizations offer the following recommendations for peace, urging that the U.S. take effective measures to help the innocent civilians in Darfur.
As The Arab American News went to press on Friday, May 5, 2006, the Darfur peace talks ended with a signing ceremony between the government and the largest rebel faction, the Sudanese Liberation Movement. It remains to be seen if the new treaty will reconcile the crisis.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=b86d46e01ec694c079631d248260ef81
http://counterpunch.org/youmans05082006.html
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other American Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, are members of the coalition. But no representative from these, or any Muslim coalition member, was allowed to speak.
Indeed, there is a hidden agenda in the efforts of some of those putting Darfur on the radar of Americans - several of them, in fact. Pro-Israel groups, Christian Zionists and neocons paint the Darfur situation as Arabs against Africans. This helps them in their efforts to paint all Arabs/Muslims as terrorists. And by labeling the conflict as genocide, they both deflect attention from Israel's mass murder of Palestinians and make the Arabs look just as bad as the Israelis.
There are strategy issues involved also. According to a book published by the Dayan Institute for Middle East and Africa Studies called "Israel and the Sudanese Liberation Movement," Israel long ago adopted a strategy which they call 'pulling the limbs, then cutting them off.' What this policy entails is the building of bridges with minority groups in various countries, pulling them out of the nationalist context and then "encouraging" them to separate.
Tel Aviv hoped that this strategy would inevitably weaken the Arab world, break it down and threaten its interests at the same time. In order for this strategy to work, Mossad agents opened lines of communication and connections with the Kurds in Iraq, Maronites in Lebanon and southerners in Sudan. Now they're trying it with Darfurians.
Arab American Institute President James Zogby did speak out forcefully at the rally against the ongoing atrocities in Darfur. Zogby, who said he represented Arab Americans of all religious affiliations at the rally, demanded "that action be taken now to stop the killing from all sides and protect the wounded people of Darfur."
"It is unfortunate that the Save Darfur Coalition chose not to list any mainstream American Muslim groups in the rally program," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "This disturbing omission calls into question the coalition's true agenda at the rally."
The violence in Darfur has been perpetrated upon villages by government sponsored militias and the rebels and has produced more than 1.3 million internally displaced refugees. Peace talks between the warring parties have been going on for two years.
Two Jewish groups - the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum - that founded the Save Darfur Coalition organized Sunday’s rally. They say they have been particularly appalled by the atrocities in Darfur. "Determined to make ‘never again’ not just a meaningless cliche, they have taken a leading role in anti-genocide advocacy and education," according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
That would be admirable, except the exclusivism with which they went about this rally intimates that something other than altruism is going on here.
Sadly, many of those clamoring for harsh measures against Sudan's government have innocently bought the pro-Israel propaganda on Sudan and betray a misunderstanding of the causes for the conflict. As Emily Wax wrote in the Washington Post:
"Although analysts have emphasized the racial and ethnic aspects of the conflict in Darfur, a long-running political battle between Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir and radical Islamic cleric Hassan al-Turabi may be more relevant." Al-Turabi and Bashir are political rivals. Al-Turabi, though sequestered in his villa, actively stimulates anti-government uprisings. Wax quotes a Sudanese human rights worker: "Darfur is simply the battlefield for a power struggle over Khartoum," said Ghazi Suleiman. "That's why the government hit back so hard. They saw al-Turabi's hand, and they want to stay in control of Sudan at any cost."
Wax also pointed out that nearly everyone is Muslim, everyone is black, it's all about politics, the conflict is international and the 'genocide' label made it worse.
The differences in Darfur are largely between lifestyles: the sedentary versus the nomadic peoples (from among whom the notorious Janjaweed come). The difference between Arabs and non-Arabs is also ethno-linguistic.
Whatever the cause of the divisions, mass murder and displacement are wrong. For activists and analysts to work on this, however, they need to grasp the basic issues. Mischaracterizing the causes can be regressive. The call for divestment from Sudan, for instance, though well-intentioned for some, is a mistaken approach.
The Muslim members of the Save Darfur Coalition this week reiterated their concern for the crisis in Darfur. The joint statement stresses that the humanitarian workers on the ground have warned the international community and the region that politicizing the Darfur conflict will ultimately result in more suffering and will endanger more civilians.
The organizations have requested a meeting with President Bush and Secretary Rice. The organizations offer the following recommendations for peace, urging that the U.S. take effective measures to help the innocent civilians in Darfur.
As The Arab American News went to press on Friday, May 5, 2006, the Darfur peace talks ended with a signing ceremony between the government and the largest rebel faction, the Sudanese Liberation Movement. It remains to be seen if the new treaty will reconcile the crisis.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=b86d46e01ec694c079631d248260ef81
http://counterpunch.org/youmans05082006.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Why are we Muslims so silent on Darfur?
TAREK FATAH
The remark by a prominent Muslim refugee-rights activist troubled me greatly: "Zionists [are] abusing this issue," he announced curtly when he said he would not be joining me and hundreds of other people on Sunday at a "Scream for Darfur" rally at Queen's Park in Toronto.
This line of thinking, that Jews have somehow stolen the issue of Darfur's genocide by actively campaigning against it, has been making the rounds in cyberspace and needs a rebuttal.
The fact that more than 200,000 Darfurians, almost all of them Muslims, have been killed in an ongoing genocide; the fact that more than a million Muslim Darfurians are displaced refugees living in squalor and fear, appears not to have registered with the leadership of traditional Muslim organizations and mosques in this country.
One would have expected Muslim organizations to be leading the call for this week's debate on Darfur in Parliament. One expected them this past weekend to stand in solidarity with their fellow Muslims suffering in Sudan, but that did not happen. The city's Muslim elite was conspicuous by its absence.
Elfadl Elsharief, the Muslim Sudanese who organized the rally, angrily dismissed the notion that the Darfur tragedy is an exaggeration and that he and his organizers were being used by Zionists.
"It is nonsense to suggest that the death, destruction and the suffering of the Darfurian people is imaginary or that Zionists are using us as propaganda," he told me at the rally. "The Sudanese government-backed militias are the people who are killing their fellow Sudanese. The tragedy is that it is Muslims who are killing other Muslims."
Indeed, it certainly appears that some kind of Arabic-Islamic ideology is being used in Sudan to ethnically cleanse marginalized citizens who are not considered true Muslims by virtue of being black. "To suggest that this is some sort of a U.S.-Israel conspiracy is ludicrous and insane," said Mr. Elsharief. "Muslims of Arab background should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Darfurian Muslims; unfortunately, they are not. That is a shame," he added, as he walked away shaking his head in despair.
Mr. Elsharief's frustration was shared by Mohamed Haroun, the eloquent president of the Darfuri Association of Canada. "A lot of us feel that some Muslims, who dominate the community, do not consider us African Muslims as equals. I am afraid there is widespread racism against African Muslims by other Muslims. How many more Darfuri Muslims should die before other Muslims will stand up against the Sudanese government?"
The sentiments of hurt expressed by my two Sudanese Muslim colleagues are shared by Muslims across the world, but do not find expression in the Muslim leadership. Last month, Fatema Abdul Rasul wrote angrily in The Daily Star of Lebanon: "For the entire Muslim and Arab world to remain silent when thousands of people in Darfur continue to be killed is shameful and hypocritical."
El-Farouk Khaki, the immigration lawyer who was accused of being used by Zionists because he had sent out the invitation to Sunday's rally, agreed that there is widespread internal discrimination within some Muslim societies. "This is racism at its worst. I am an African-Canadian; I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the Darfur crisis has not made news in the traditional Muslim organizations because Darfurians are black. Had they been Bosnian, Kosovar, Arab, Pakistani or Iranian, I can bet you, these grounds would have been full of slogan-chanting Muslims demanding justice. Muslims need to address their internalized racism before they ask others to respect us," said Mr. Khaki, who is secretary-general of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
For three years, the government of Sudan has been engaging in genocide of the people of Darfur. For all these years, Khartoum has invoked its Islamic credentials to stave off any criticism or censure from inside the Muslim world, falsely posturing itself as a defender of Muslim frontiers against Western imperialism. It is time for Muslims to rip off Khartoum's mask of deception and speak the truth.
Tarek Fatah is host of a weekly TV show on CTS-TV, The Muslim Chronicle, and is the communication director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060503.CODARFUR03/TPStory/
TAREK FATAH
The remark by a prominent Muslim refugee-rights activist troubled me greatly: "Zionists [are] abusing this issue," he announced curtly when he said he would not be joining me and hundreds of other people on Sunday at a "Scream for Darfur" rally at Queen's Park in Toronto.
This line of thinking, that Jews have somehow stolen the issue of Darfur's genocide by actively campaigning against it, has been making the rounds in cyberspace and needs a rebuttal.
The fact that more than 200,000 Darfurians, almost all of them Muslims, have been killed in an ongoing genocide; the fact that more than a million Muslim Darfurians are displaced refugees living in squalor and fear, appears not to have registered with the leadership of traditional Muslim organizations and mosques in this country.
One would have expected Muslim organizations to be leading the call for this week's debate on Darfur in Parliament. One expected them this past weekend to stand in solidarity with their fellow Muslims suffering in Sudan, but that did not happen. The city's Muslim elite was conspicuous by its absence.
Elfadl Elsharief, the Muslim Sudanese who organized the rally, angrily dismissed the notion that the Darfur tragedy is an exaggeration and that he and his organizers were being used by Zionists.
"It is nonsense to suggest that the death, destruction and the suffering of the Darfurian people is imaginary or that Zionists are using us as propaganda," he told me at the rally. "The Sudanese government-backed militias are the people who are killing their fellow Sudanese. The tragedy is that it is Muslims who are killing other Muslims."
Indeed, it certainly appears that some kind of Arabic-Islamic ideology is being used in Sudan to ethnically cleanse marginalized citizens who are not considered true Muslims by virtue of being black. "To suggest that this is some sort of a U.S.-Israel conspiracy is ludicrous and insane," said Mr. Elsharief. "Muslims of Arab background should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Darfurian Muslims; unfortunately, they are not. That is a shame," he added, as he walked away shaking his head in despair.
Mr. Elsharief's frustration was shared by Mohamed Haroun, the eloquent president of the Darfuri Association of Canada. "A lot of us feel that some Muslims, who dominate the community, do not consider us African Muslims as equals. I am afraid there is widespread racism against African Muslims by other Muslims. How many more Darfuri Muslims should die before other Muslims will stand up against the Sudanese government?"
The sentiments of hurt expressed by my two Sudanese Muslim colleagues are shared by Muslims across the world, but do not find expression in the Muslim leadership. Last month, Fatema Abdul Rasul wrote angrily in The Daily Star of Lebanon: "For the entire Muslim and Arab world to remain silent when thousands of people in Darfur continue to be killed is shameful and hypocritical."
El-Farouk Khaki, the immigration lawyer who was accused of being used by Zionists because he had sent out the invitation to Sunday's rally, agreed that there is widespread internal discrimination within some Muslim societies. "This is racism at its worst. I am an African-Canadian; I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the Darfur crisis has not made news in the traditional Muslim organizations because Darfurians are black. Had they been Bosnian, Kosovar, Arab, Pakistani or Iranian, I can bet you, these grounds would have been full of slogan-chanting Muslims demanding justice. Muslims need to address their internalized racism before they ask others to respect us," said Mr. Khaki, who is secretary-general of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
For three years, the government of Sudan has been engaging in genocide of the people of Darfur. For all these years, Khartoum has invoked its Islamic credentials to stave off any criticism or censure from inside the Muslim world, falsely posturing itself as a defender of Muslim frontiers against Western imperialism. It is time for Muslims to rip off Khartoum's mask of deception and speak the truth.
Tarek Fatah is host of a weekly TV show on CTS-TV, The Muslim Chronicle, and is the communication director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060503.CODARFUR03/TPStory/
Indeed, there is a hidden agenda in the efforts of some of those putting Darfur on the radar of Americans - several of them, in fact. Pro-Israel groups, Christian Zionists and neocons paint the Darfur situation as Arabs against Africans. This helps them in their efforts to paint all Arabs/Muslims as terrorists. And by labeling the conflict as genocide, they both deflect attention from Israel's mass murder of Palestinians and make the Arabs look just as bad as the Israelis.
"Muslims" are not silent about Darfur. The people who rioted against the UN yesterday because of the lack of aid were Muslims. Most of the refugees from Darfur are Muslims. The rebel groups fighting the Janjaweed are Muslims and one of the main factions is composed of fundamentalist Muslims (the leader of the JEM, which is one of the main groups on the "good" side of the conflict, was the guy who invited Bin Laden to Sudan and radicalized him).
While its true that people are using the Darfur conflict to try to demonize Muslims the weird part is that groups doing this are in some cases calling for the arming of the very man who radicalized Bin Laden and calling for the overthrow of his main opponent (the current leader of Sudan).
Of course when genocide is going on one does sometimes have to make such strange alliances. But its a bit strange that antiIslamists are so proJEM when the JEM is partly lead by al-Turabi who was the leader of the Sudanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
While its true that people are using the Darfur conflict to try to demonize Muslims the weird part is that groups doing this are in some cases calling for the arming of the very man who radicalized Bin Laden and calling for the overthrow of his main opponent (the current leader of Sudan).
Of course when genocide is going on one does sometimes have to make such strange alliances. But its a bit strange that antiIslamists are so proJEM when the JEM is partly lead by al-Turabi who was the leader of the Sudanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"...the weird part is that groups doing this are in some cases calling for the arming of the very man who radicalized Bin Laden..."
US foreign policy seems to be completely Israelized now, meaning that the weird logic of false flags, black ops, and Trotskyite syndicalism-via-perpetual-war (a la the neocons) has become the rule of the day. The best way to keep fascism's pretexts alive is by feeding your "enemy": seeing to it he remains on the lam (like Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi...), hangs onto his popular following, continues to limp along militarily, and is kept furious by outrageous provocations (e.g. Israel's death-camp wall). Israel has been operating from these principles for decades. Now the neocons have taken them global.
US foreign policy seems to be completely Israelized now, meaning that the weird logic of false flags, black ops, and Trotskyite syndicalism-via-perpetual-war (a la the neocons) has become the rule of the day. The best way to keep fascism's pretexts alive is by feeding your "enemy": seeing to it he remains on the lam (like Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi...), hangs onto his popular following, continues to limp along militarily, and is kept furious by outrageous provocations (e.g. Israel's death-camp wall). Israel has been operating from these principles for decades. Now the neocons have taken them global.
This is not the time nor the place to discuss the Arab- Israeli conflict. What surprised me your incomplete statement that and I quote"Tel Aviv hoped that this strategy would inevitably weaken the Arab world, break it down and threaten its interests at the same time. In order for this strategy to work, Mossad agents opened lines of communication and connections with the Kurds in Iraq, Maronites in Lebanon and southerners in Sudan. Now they're trying it with Darfurians". There are many problems in the Arab countries, on top of them the lack of democracy and denying minorities their rights.Of course both are intertwined.However, it sad to see the Arab countries attribute all their problems to America and Israel, and try unsuccessfully to portray these problems as if they manifactured for this specific purpose to antagonize the Arab and Islamic world.For instance, the Kurdish problem.This is a problem of a divided nation against its will, in fact the largest stateless nation in the world today.They were converted to Islam in the 7th century.This great nation has lived on his ancestral land for thousands of years way before the invasion of other nations such as Arabs and Tukic nations to the region.And yet, they are denied their rights, oppressed and sometimes denied their very existence and subjected to Genocide.When they were attacked first time by Chemicals, the fact that they are muslims did not prompt any Islamic or Arabic country to even remotely condemn those attacks or offered help to treat the victims.On the contrary most of them cmmended Saddam on his action and supported him in his atrocities.The same applies to all other ethnic and minority problems in the Arab world. These problems were not devised by America and Israel.They are deeply rooted in these countries that reject democracy not only to them but to their own people.If these problems are solved properly, how can America or Israel manipulate them? Please next time put the blame where it is right.
there is a hidden agenda in the efforts of some of those putting Darfur on the radar of Americans - several of them, in fact. Pro-Israel groups, Christian Zionists and neocons paint the Darfur situation as Arabs against Africans. This helps them in their efforts to paint all Arabs/Muslims as terrorists. And by labeling the conflict as genocide, they both deflect attention from Israel's mass murder of Palestinians and make the Arabs look just as bad as the Israelis.
Just to clarify. The conflict directly related to the genocide is mainly between speakers of Arabic who are dark skinned, poor, live nomadicly and are Muslim and poor argricultural peasants who look the same but do not speak Arabic (thus it gets portrayed as Arab vs nonArab only semicorrectly). The root of the conflict is related to power struggles between factions who are not directly carrying out the genocide and are not directly the victims.
Its likely the Janjaweed would be doing exactly what they are doing now but at a nongenocidal level if the Sudanese government were not arming them sicne nomadic groups have raided agricultural villages like this (especially during times of drought) for thousands of years. The powerstruggles behind the conflict are almost the opposite of what is normally portrayed in terms of the mainsteram Western press in that the groups fighting the Janja weed are represented byt the more fundamentalist followers of Islam who until recenly were demanding Sharia throughout Sudan, although now thats changed a bit but probably mainly for Western consumption.
Its likely the Janjaweed would be doing exactly what they are doing now but at a nongenocidal level if the Sudanese government were not arming them sicne nomadic groups have raided agricultural villages like this (especially during times of drought) for thousands of years. The powerstruggles behind the conflict are almost the opposite of what is normally portrayed in terms of the mainsteram Western press in that the groups fighting the Janja weed are represented byt the more fundamentalist followers of Islam who until recenly were demanding Sharia throughout Sudan, although now thats changed a bit but probably mainly for Western consumption.
"And by labeling the conflict as genocide, they both deflect attention from Israel's mass murder of Palestinians and make the Arabs look just as bad as the Israelis."
Wrong: According to Indybay, there have been 4,000 Palestinians killed in 6 years. According to most sources, there have been 400,000 Darfurians killed in 3 years. And 2 million more in exile. Darfur is a genocide. 100 times the death in half the time. It is the single worst atrocity happening in the world today.
If 400,000 dead in 3 years is NOT genocide, then what is?
Wrong: According to Indybay, there have been 4,000 Palestinians killed in 6 years. According to most sources, there have been 400,000 Darfurians killed in 3 years. And 2 million more in exile. Darfur is a genocide. 100 times the death in half the time. It is the single worst atrocity happening in the world today.
If 400,000 dead in 3 years is NOT genocide, then what is?
we are saying that its being used as a ploy to deflect focus from the terrorist state of Israel.
Its really stupid to assert that over 400,000 people slaughtered and a couple million displaced, rape used as a tool of warfare in one country, is a cover for a situation in another country involving far less people.
Is that the number of people who have been killed by the Janjaweed or those who have died due to disease and the like as a result of the war. Its sortof "genocide" either way but as a comparison to the Darfur number you should look at the number who died indrectly from the second DRC war (1998-2003) which has been estimated at 3.8 million (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War ) While you can claim that Darfur is somehow more serious, the war in the DRC was also between ethnic groups and many of the deaths could be described as genocidal in intent but the conflict recevived almost zero international new coverage even while the world focused on the Rwanda genocidee that was a cause of the later conflict across the border.
Rwanda was a case where civilians were rounded up and killed over a very short period of time and the death numbers are those directly killed whereas Darfur is a bit different and if one counts the number who have died as a result of governmental policy as genocide wouldnt one equally have to call similar deaths in poor parts of Iraq gencocidal since aid and the like cant get to Sunni regions partly as a result of the lack of willingness for the aid to go to such areas by the Shia government (since the Lancet report had 100,000 deaths in Iraq beyond nomral levels in the first year of he war the total number would seem comparible to Sudan).
I'm not arguing that Darfur isnt horrible and shouldnt be focused on but this article for all of its mentions of Israel brings up good points about how the conflict is misrepresented; its not Arabs against blacks or Muslims against non-muslims and its rarely mentioned that the main victims of the conflict are groups that were allied with the fundamentalists during the 90s and not those that opposed Al Qaeda when it emerged in Sudan at the time. Bin Ladens ties to the JEM shouldnt condemn any group to genocide but the point is that the War or Terror dialog is being used by many who talk about Darfur in a very manipulative fashion (the government of Sudan is equated with those that supported Bin Laden to make the conflict see more black and white).
Maybe Im misreading some of the numbers but if Darfur is being portrayed as genocide due to starvation related deaths as a result of a war that isnt 100% one sided, shouldnt one also include cases like Ethopia in the 1980s and even US sanctions on Iraq as genocide? I guess Wikipedia does mention higher numbers "The United States government's Sudan Peace Act of October 21, 2002 accused Sudan of genocide in an ongoing civil war which has cost more than 2,000,000 lives and has displaced more than 4,000,000 people since since the war started in 1983." But what's strange in that entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Sudan ) is that it uses code words like "get rid of 80 black African groups" and "the armed Muslim Arab Janjaweed" when the "black African" groups are also Muslim and the Janjaweed are also as dark skinned (and may speak Arabic but are not really Arabs) as the groups they are atacking. (although it does refer to the following article that does explain the conflict in a bit more realistic terms http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,1768001,00.html )
I guess I'll end with a quote from that article:
"One-sided international media treatment of the crisis may have emboldened the rebels to increase their demands. In many forgotten conflicts, the TV and commentary spotlights help to sound the alarm and bring pressure for action. In the Darfur case, they could be having a pernicious effect and be delaying the chance of ending the killing.
Western governments, at least, have been more even-handed. It is widely accepted the Sudanese government was responsible for the initial atrocities by overreacting to the first rebel attacks three years ago. Khartoum armed the Janjaweed, and may still control some of them. UN officials fear that without a peace deal government forces may attack the rebel-held town of Gereida, putting another 100,000 people to flight. But the US, Britain and UN now blame the rebels for atrocities and the lack of peace. The security council last week put international travel bans on four people suspected of serious crimes in Darfur. Two were mid-ranking rebel leaders.
...
If a peace agreement for Darfur has been signed by the deadline which the mediators set, the crisis will be a long way from over. Helping 2 million displaced people to go home will take time, care and money. There must not be another Darfur Disconnect, this time between delight at the peace deal and a failure to follow through and see it implemented. The big UN agencies are already complaining of lack of funds. The World Food Programme has had to halve its rations for the hungry. Unicef says it is only getting 15% of what it needs. The AU will need financial help to bring in the extra ceasefire monitors the peace deal requires.
And that deal may yet not be struck. This morning's news could be bleak after all. If that is the case, the marchers in America and the world's TV cameras should focus their anger on the rebels rather than on Khartoum.
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,1768001,00.html
Rwanda was a case where civilians were rounded up and killed over a very short period of time and the death numbers are those directly killed whereas Darfur is a bit different and if one counts the number who have died as a result of governmental policy as genocide wouldnt one equally have to call similar deaths in poor parts of Iraq gencocidal since aid and the like cant get to Sunni regions partly as a result of the lack of willingness for the aid to go to such areas by the Shia government (since the Lancet report had 100,000 deaths in Iraq beyond nomral levels in the first year of he war the total number would seem comparible to Sudan).
I'm not arguing that Darfur isnt horrible and shouldnt be focused on but this article for all of its mentions of Israel brings up good points about how the conflict is misrepresented; its not Arabs against blacks or Muslims against non-muslims and its rarely mentioned that the main victims of the conflict are groups that were allied with the fundamentalists during the 90s and not those that opposed Al Qaeda when it emerged in Sudan at the time. Bin Ladens ties to the JEM shouldnt condemn any group to genocide but the point is that the War or Terror dialog is being used by many who talk about Darfur in a very manipulative fashion (the government of Sudan is equated with those that supported Bin Laden to make the conflict see more black and white).
Maybe Im misreading some of the numbers but if Darfur is being portrayed as genocide due to starvation related deaths as a result of a war that isnt 100% one sided, shouldnt one also include cases like Ethopia in the 1980s and even US sanctions on Iraq as genocide? I guess Wikipedia does mention higher numbers "The United States government's Sudan Peace Act of October 21, 2002 accused Sudan of genocide in an ongoing civil war which has cost more than 2,000,000 lives and has displaced more than 4,000,000 people since since the war started in 1983." But what's strange in that entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Sudan ) is that it uses code words like "get rid of 80 black African groups" and "the armed Muslim Arab Janjaweed" when the "black African" groups are also Muslim and the Janjaweed are also as dark skinned (and may speak Arabic but are not really Arabs) as the groups they are atacking. (although it does refer to the following article that does explain the conflict in a bit more realistic terms http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,1768001,00.html )
I guess I'll end with a quote from that article:
"One-sided international media treatment of the crisis may have emboldened the rebels to increase their demands. In many forgotten conflicts, the TV and commentary spotlights help to sound the alarm and bring pressure for action. In the Darfur case, they could be having a pernicious effect and be delaying the chance of ending the killing.
Western governments, at least, have been more even-handed. It is widely accepted the Sudanese government was responsible for the initial atrocities by overreacting to the first rebel attacks three years ago. Khartoum armed the Janjaweed, and may still control some of them. UN officials fear that without a peace deal government forces may attack the rebel-held town of Gereida, putting another 100,000 people to flight. But the US, Britain and UN now blame the rebels for atrocities and the lack of peace. The security council last week put international travel bans on four people suspected of serious crimes in Darfur. Two were mid-ranking rebel leaders.
...
If a peace agreement for Darfur has been signed by the deadline which the mediators set, the crisis will be a long way from over. Helping 2 million displaced people to go home will take time, care and money. There must not be another Darfur Disconnect, this time between delight at the peace deal and a failure to follow through and see it implemented. The big UN agencies are already complaining of lack of funds. The World Food Programme has had to halve its rations for the hungry. Unicef says it is only getting 15% of what it needs. The AU will need financial help to bring in the extra ceasefire monitors the peace deal requires.
And that deal may yet not be struck. This morning's news could be bleak after all. If that is the case, the marchers in America and the world's TV cameras should focus their anger on the rebels rather than on Khartoum.
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,1768001,00.html
http://www.ajws.org/index.cfm?section_id=2&sub_section_id=2
To see what the American Jewish World Service is saying about Darfur.
Its a humaniatrian crisis- I haven't heard anyone, outside of Indybay, discussing it as anything else.
Oh, and while you are at the AJWS website, look at the other projects they are involved with HIV education- women's empowerment-sustainable agriculture. If you try really really hard, I am sure you can find a way to question their motivation in these areas, as well.
To see what the American Jewish World Service is saying about Darfur.
Its a humaniatrian crisis- I haven't heard anyone, outside of Indybay, discussing it as anything else.
Oh, and while you are at the AJWS website, look at the other projects they are involved with HIV education- women's empowerment-sustainable agriculture. If you try really really hard, I am sure you can find a way to question their motivation in these areas, as well.
I think the talk of Israel is a bit off mark. Some of the focus on Darfur is related to antiArab racism in the US where the desire to say "see what these people do" is used to portray the conflict in simplistic terms and misrepresent the identities of the groups involved in the conflict. Some supporters of Israel fall in this category but the focus on the conflict by most Jewish activists groups is much more closely tied to how Rwanda was covered mixed with attempts by NGOs to equate Rwanda and Darfur (and a guilt that NGOs play on, where "never again" rings hollow in the wake of Rwanda where people were hacked to death in the thousands in front of both international troops and TV cameras).
The way NGOs have focused on the conflict makes it seem about as one sided as Tibet with clear good guys and bad guys. The victims of Darfur are dehumanized in order to save them; while there is an actual war gong on the news coverage of victims tries to pull at heart strings by portraying the groups that are victims as almost unhuman animals incabilble of fighting (or even speaking) fo themselves. When was the last time you actually hard coverage of Darfur include an interview with anyone from Darfur? This is not specific to Darfur in the level that dehumanization of victims is used to appeal for aid (the "Make Poverty History" even in the UK last year contained similar themes) but the Darfur is much more like Tibet in that the coverage also contains a once dimensional enemy, the Janjaweed (who are mainly from the Baggara ethnic group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baggara which will likely be the next victim of genocide in the region based off how Western media coverage has played up hatreds).
Right-wing leaders may point to groups in Darfur or the Kurds to justify wars, but I think the dynamic is a bit different. NGOs and the like try to focus attention on attrocities and portray them in simplistic terms all of the time. During the 80s talk of the Kurds by NGOs was ignored by the mainstream media when the Kurds getting gassed were allied with Iran against Iraq and the US was backing Iraq. During the 90s talk of the horrors of the Taliban was ignored by the mainstream media since it was too depressing with no possibility of change and too much baggage tied to US backing of the groups during the 80s. But once war looked inevitable in those regions focusing on the conflicts got both a context (since the media needed to focus on the region anyways) and it created an easier to tell story with a likely resolution (and news coverage is more linked to entertainment values than political desires in most cases). From an entertainment perspective Darfur presents a story that can resonate with the public since it can draw from the 1980s Ethiopia starvation coverage as well as the new war on terror themes about evil Arabs. It also presents a story that can provide a positive bookend to the Rwanda genocide if the West responds (even if millions die before the wars ends, a story ending with the massacre of the Bagarra people by Western troops can play as the heros comming to the rescue in the mainstream press).
For the Chirstian fundamentalist press the story can also be linked in with the slavery stories being run a few years back (see http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan%20Slave%20Story.htm ); while the conflict and groups involved are different ones, that story was about Arabs enslaving Christian blacks and with the media's lack of focus on Darfur being a Muslim region the confusion leads to increased interest since it can essentially play out as the same story.
One last point is that Bin Laden's recent speach about Darfur was more manipulative than it may seem. He used to be allied with a leader (Al-Turabi) of one of the groups fighting for the victims of Darfur but that leader has now publically turned againts Bin Laden (and despite having been the main person calling for Sharia in the 90s and being the person who was most responsible for Bin Laden's radicalization he now publically is calling for a moderate interpretation of Islam). This gives an immediate guess that Bin Laden wants revenge. But the story could be more complicated since if the US fell into the trap of going to war in Sudan the groups that would end up getting US arms to fight the Janjaweed would be the very groups that used to be closely allied with Bin Laden and if the US decided not to arm other groups and fight directly (which the US was smart enough not to do in Afghanistan ), US casualties would be very high since it could easilly pull the US into one of the bloodiest and most war torn regions on earth (central Africa) with hundreds of sides fighting each other rather than a simplistic case of two opposing sides. The US may want oil in the region but as with Afghanistan, a US war wouldnt make that any more likely since the introduction of US troops would just enflame things and make oil exploration even more difficult (the Taliban were much easier for oil companies to deal than the present chaos...) Is Al-Turabi now a moderate who can get US arms via the JEM to fight the Janjaweed? Or could it be that he is mainly moderating his politics in public to get Western support so he can push for more hardline Islamic goals once he regains power? So far, Bin Laden has been able to think two steps ahead of the US and this could easilly again be the case in Darfur (ie. Al-Turabi and Bin Laden may still be on the same side and his recent statements on Darfur could have just been designed to play into Al-Turabi's attempt to claim he has changed and have been intended to encourage the US into Darfur not deter the US)
The way NGOs have focused on the conflict makes it seem about as one sided as Tibet with clear good guys and bad guys. The victims of Darfur are dehumanized in order to save them; while there is an actual war gong on the news coverage of victims tries to pull at heart strings by portraying the groups that are victims as almost unhuman animals incabilble of fighting (or even speaking) fo themselves. When was the last time you actually hard coverage of Darfur include an interview with anyone from Darfur? This is not specific to Darfur in the level that dehumanization of victims is used to appeal for aid (the "Make Poverty History" even in the UK last year contained similar themes) but the Darfur is much more like Tibet in that the coverage also contains a once dimensional enemy, the Janjaweed (who are mainly from the Baggara ethnic group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baggara which will likely be the next victim of genocide in the region based off how Western media coverage has played up hatreds).
Right-wing leaders may point to groups in Darfur or the Kurds to justify wars, but I think the dynamic is a bit different. NGOs and the like try to focus attention on attrocities and portray them in simplistic terms all of the time. During the 80s talk of the Kurds by NGOs was ignored by the mainstream media when the Kurds getting gassed were allied with Iran against Iraq and the US was backing Iraq. During the 90s talk of the horrors of the Taliban was ignored by the mainstream media since it was too depressing with no possibility of change and too much baggage tied to US backing of the groups during the 80s. But once war looked inevitable in those regions focusing on the conflicts got both a context (since the media needed to focus on the region anyways) and it created an easier to tell story with a likely resolution (and news coverage is more linked to entertainment values than political desires in most cases). From an entertainment perspective Darfur presents a story that can resonate with the public since it can draw from the 1980s Ethiopia starvation coverage as well as the new war on terror themes about evil Arabs. It also presents a story that can provide a positive bookend to the Rwanda genocide if the West responds (even if millions die before the wars ends, a story ending with the massacre of the Bagarra people by Western troops can play as the heros comming to the rescue in the mainstream press).
For the Chirstian fundamentalist press the story can also be linked in with the slavery stories being run a few years back (see http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan%20Slave%20Story.htm ); while the conflict and groups involved are different ones, that story was about Arabs enslaving Christian blacks and with the media's lack of focus on Darfur being a Muslim region the confusion leads to increased interest since it can essentially play out as the same story.
One last point is that Bin Laden's recent speach about Darfur was more manipulative than it may seem. He used to be allied with a leader (Al-Turabi) of one of the groups fighting for the victims of Darfur but that leader has now publically turned againts Bin Laden (and despite having been the main person calling for Sharia in the 90s and being the person who was most responsible for Bin Laden's radicalization he now publically is calling for a moderate interpretation of Islam). This gives an immediate guess that Bin Laden wants revenge. But the story could be more complicated since if the US fell into the trap of going to war in Sudan the groups that would end up getting US arms to fight the Janjaweed would be the very groups that used to be closely allied with Bin Laden and if the US decided not to arm other groups and fight directly (which the US was smart enough not to do in Afghanistan ), US casualties would be very high since it could easilly pull the US into one of the bloodiest and most war torn regions on earth (central Africa) with hundreds of sides fighting each other rather than a simplistic case of two opposing sides. The US may want oil in the region but as with Afghanistan, a US war wouldnt make that any more likely since the introduction of US troops would just enflame things and make oil exploration even more difficult (the Taliban were much easier for oil companies to deal than the present chaos...) Is Al-Turabi now a moderate who can get US arms via the JEM to fight the Janjaweed? Or could it be that he is mainly moderating his politics in public to get Western support so he can push for more hardline Islamic goals once he regains power? So far, Bin Laden has been able to think two steps ahead of the US and this could easilly again be the case in Darfur (ie. Al-Turabi and Bin Laden may still be on the same side and his recent statements on Darfur could have just been designed to play into Al-Turabi's attempt to claim he has changed and have been intended to encourage the US into Darfur not deter the US)
"Since 2003, an estimated 215,000 civilians have been killed in an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing being carried out by a government-backed Arab militia known as "Janjaweed," committed to wiping out the native black non-Arab African inhabitants of the territory. Additionally, approximately 200,000 more people have died from disease and malnutrition, bringing the total number of the dead in Darfur to over 400,000. And in addition to the dead, more than two million persons have been displaced and several hundred thousand have fled the country into neighboring Chad."
From mission statement of Bay area darfur coalition
From mission statement of Bay area darfur coalition
"government-backed Arab militia known as "Janjaweed," committed to wiping out the native black non-Arab African "
Use of terms like "Arab", "native", "black" and "nonArab" are a bit manipulative and promote a few myths about the conflict. The Janjaweed are from the native Baggara ethnic group and have dark skin and look just like their victims so its weird how terms like "black" and "Arab" are used like this. The North-South war was Muslims against Christians and anamists but in Darfur both groups are groups with mainly native backgrounds with both groups having converted to Islam in the past 1000 years and one having also adopted the Arabic language.
Arguing against misrepresentation like this in the face of an actual genocide may seem petty but it really is one of the reasons the genocide is allowed to happen. When framed to fit into a simplistic antiMuslim international agenda (which is weird when many of the victims of genocide are Islamic fundamentalists) action to stop the genocide is impossible since the very groups that need to intervene are being alienated. Muslim griups have spoken out frequently about Darfur but are usually silenced and dont receive the coverage of the groups that want to use the plight of the victims of Darfur not to promote action to save them but to whip up hatred against the very people who are the victims of the genocide.
Use of terms like "Arab", "native", "black" and "nonArab" are a bit manipulative and promote a few myths about the conflict. The Janjaweed are from the native Baggara ethnic group and have dark skin and look just like their victims so its weird how terms like "black" and "Arab" are used like this. The North-South war was Muslims against Christians and anamists but in Darfur both groups are groups with mainly native backgrounds with both groups having converted to Islam in the past 1000 years and one having also adopted the Arabic language.
Arguing against misrepresentation like this in the face of an actual genocide may seem petty but it really is one of the reasons the genocide is allowed to happen. When framed to fit into a simplistic antiMuslim international agenda (which is weird when many of the victims of genocide are Islamic fundamentalists) action to stop the genocide is impossible since the very groups that need to intervene are being alienated. Muslim griups have spoken out frequently about Darfur but are usually silenced and dont receive the coverage of the groups that want to use the plight of the victims of Darfur not to promote action to save them but to whip up hatred against the very people who are the victims of the genocide.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network