How would you describe the conflict in Darfur, Sudan?

[gottaB]

Poll question: How would you describe the conflict in Darfur, Sudan?

Relevant blog: http://passionofthepresent.org

[gottaB]

1. Perspectives, Implications

From the testimony of John Pendergast (ICG) before the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee:

Is it Genocide?

It is appalling that we have been reduced to semantic debates about whether the situation in Darfur is ethnic cleansing or genocide. The Genocide Convention prohibits actions "calculated to bring about the physical destruction of groups in whole or in part", and compels signatory states to act to prevent them. In ICG's judgement, the situation in Darfur more than satisfies the Genocide Convention's conditions for multilateral preventive action. But even if argument continues about whether this is a case of actual or potential genocide, it cannot be contested that in Darfur a large section of Sudan's population is alarmingly at risk, that the Government of Sudan has so far failed comprehensively in its responsibility to protect them, and that it is time for the international community, through the Security Council, to assume that responsibility.

This is not Rwanda of 1994, a country to which very little attention was being paid. Sudan has been at the top of the Bush Administration's radar screen since it came to office. It is not credible to say now that we did not know what was happening. Over the past year, Darfur has been Rwanda in painfully slow motion.

Pendergast Testimony (pdf)

The entire hearing: Sudan: Peace but at What Price?

From Justice Africa

Is it Genocide?

22. Is the Darfur conflict genocide? If we strictly apply the provisions of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, there is no doubt that the answer is yes. The definition of ‘genocide’ in Article II of the Convention is ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’ The numbers of killings may not yet come close to those perpetrated in Rwanda or Nazi Germany, and the entire destruction of the targeted ethnic groups does not seem in prospect, but these extreme manifestations are not legally necessary for a crime to count as genocide.

23. Is this a crime planned at the highest level of the Sudanese state and executed according to a carefully designed central plan? Or is it a counterinsurgency that has got out of control, running wild beyond the designs of its sponsors? It would seem to be a bit of both. During the last twenty years, the characteristic mode of action employed by successive governments in Khartoum, when they want to fight a cheap and effective counterinsurgency, has been to employ militias and to give great discretion to commanders on the ground. Thus the militia massacres in Bahr el Ghazal and the killings and forced relocations of the Nuba were carried out, in a way that the government could pretend was not at its direct behest. On every occasion, however, it subsequently became clear that military officers were involved in supplying militias and directing their activities. The involvement of the air force, whose raids must be directly authorised by the chief of staff’s office in Khartoum, is evidence for high level involvement.

....

Prospects for Peace in Sudan

The Justice Africa briefing provides background on political and sectarian aspects of the crisis, and is noteworthy for attempting to present a dispassionate, balanced analysis.

[gottaB]

2. Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, Morieris

Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, Morieris. Or not. Indifference perplexes me. What can be said for it?

[gottaB]

3. kick

:kick:

[AngryAmish]

4. Slow motion genocide

It galled me about Rawanda, it is happening again but slower.

But nobody in the US cares. They really don't.

[gottaB]

5. Sometimes I blame media for the public apathy

After all, people get worked up over all sorts of things that appear on their tv screens, and even become relatively knowledgable about certain topics.

Everybody has within them the tendency to become apathetic or tune out diffucult signals. In our information society, it's really an essential skill. But there's little point in being excessive or indiscriminate in the application of apathy. The question is, then, how do you decide what really matters? How do the news media help you decide, or even make crucial decisions for you?

I think the media bear a special responsibility for informing people about the world. It isn't an adequate excuse to say like, well, we make a note of world events, but people aren't really interested, so we don't delve into things in any depth. That might be good business sense on the part of the conglomerates, but it's reckless journalism and a genuine betrayal of the public.

my 2¢

[mmonk]

6. Most likely genocide

but there's nothing we will really do about it or can. The business of conquering countries takes too much personnel, resources, and attention.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Human Rights Watch Report: Dafur Destroyed

From Human Rights Watch
Dated May 2004

Sudan: Darfur Destroyed

The government of Sudan is responsible for “ethnic cleansing” and crimes against humanity in Darfur, one of the world’s poorest and most inaccessible regions, on Sudan’s western border with Chad. The Sudanese government and the Arab “Janjaweed” militias it arms and supports have committed numerous attacks on the civilian populations of the African Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups. Government forces oversaw and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians—including women and children—burnings of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land long inhabited by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. The Janjaweed militias, Muslim like the African groups they attack, have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders, and desecrated Qorans belonging to their enemies.
The government and its Janjaweed allies have killed thousands of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa—often in cold blood—raped women, and destroyed villages, food stocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population. They have driven more than one million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, hostage to Janjaweed abuses. More than 110,000 others have fled to neighbouring Chad but the vast majority of war victims remain trapped in Darfur.
This conflict has historical roots but escalated in February 2003, when two rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) drawn from members of the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups, demanded an end to chronic economic marginalization and sought power-sharing within the Arab-ruled Sudanese state. They also sought government action to end the abuses of their rivals, Arab pastoralists who were driven onto African farmlands by drought and desertification—and who had a nomadic tradition of armed militias.
The government has responded to this armed and political threat by targeting the civilian populations from which the rebels were drawn. It brazenly engaged in ethnic manipulation by organizing a military and political partnership with some Arab nomads comprising the Janjaweed; armed, trained, and organized them; and provided effective impunity for all crimes committed.
The government-Janjaweed partnership is characterized by joint attacks on civilians rather than on the rebel forces. These attacks are carried out by members of the Sudanese military and by Janjaweed wearing uniforms that are virtually indistinguishable from those of the army.

Read more.

Please feel free to read the HRW report, Darfur Destroyed.

[gottaB]

8. "ethnic cleansing"

Human Rights Watch has consistently used the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the crisis. For an explanation, see "Ethnic Cleansing" in West Darfur from the report you cited. However, when discussing Sudan, they also frequently make comparisons to the Rwandan genocide. Is that just rhetoric? Is international law anything more than rhetoric at this point in history? Perhaps it *is* academic how the conflict is defined by the UN or in the press. The important thing is that actions are taken to alleviate the suffering of the displaced and the dispossessed.

Anyway, the hrw reports are excellent sources for learning about the conflict.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. There is a thin line between ethnic cleansing and genocide

I voted "genocide", but could just as easily gone for "ethnic cleansing."

No government or semi-official militia is going to get thousands of people out of a given area by simply saying "please go away." Ethnic cleansing is going to be accompanied by acts of mass murder, as it is in Darfur and as it was in the Balkans in the 1990s. The definition of genocide under international law is given in post number 1. That is repeated in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (Article 5):

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Broadly speaking, under the provision any instance of mass murder directed against members of a specific ethnic group because they are members of that ethnic group could be construed as genocide. Consequently, genocide, even if not directed at wiping the ethnic group off the face of the earth, is a sister crime to ethnic cleansing.

[gottaB]

12. Good point, and btw

Neither the US nor the Sudan have ratified the Statute, although both are signatories.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Two points

First, the fact that a given state has not ratified the Rome Statute could be irrelevant. The fathers of the Rome Statute knew that tyrants like Saddam would never sign on to such a thing. Therefore, they provided a number of different methods by which a case could be brought before the ICC without either the offenders or the victims being citizens of a member state in order to make possible the prosecution of rogues likes Saddam (and, by extension, you-know-who, but that's another matter).

Please look at Articles 12-15 of the Rome Statute. That is where methods of referring cases to the ICC are outlined. As you see, they don't necessarily involve being a member state.

Second, we could have a Socratic dialogue about the defininition of genocide in order to clarify if it is an attempt to wipe an ethnic group out of existence (the Nazi model) or simply systematic violence, including mass murder, against a minority group. I wouldn't think less of those who might hold to the latter definition who vote for ethnic cleansing. It's still a great crime.

[ShaneGR]

9. So what should we do? Invade?

Buzzzzzzz.... wrong answer! No more troops.

[gottaB]

10. Of course the US shouldn't invade, but there are alternatives

The AU monitors are not equiped to keep the peace, but there is a willingness there if resources were made available. It may take some time though, precious time. The UN could conceivably send peace keepers, as could the EU, but there are diplomatic hurdles. There's still more that can be diplomatically accomplished by the US on that front.

Peace keepers right now are welcome in Chad, and it may be that Bashir's government would welcome peace keepers under the right set of circumstances. There are many, many things we could do to help short of launching an invasion.

[gottaB]

16. p.s. targeted sanctions

Last night the sanctions story was posted to . According to that news story, the State Dept. spokesperson, Adam Ereli, denied that New York Times editorial was prompting a review of sanctions and other measures:

"We've been on record, a week before the editorial, as calling for exactly that. So that is a position I think the U.S. government shares. On the subject of imposing sanctions on government of Sudan officials, it's something we're looking at. It's an idea under active consideration. We are reviewing available information to determine which specific individuals could be designated as responsible."

Perhaps you will recall that recently Colin Powell removed Sudan from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism, signalling a lessening of diplomatic tensions as part of the Naivasha peace negotiations, which involved the Government of the Sudan and the SPLA but not representives from Darfur. The SLA and the JEM had negotiated a separate cease fire with the Sudanese government during negotiations in Chad, but that seems to have been rather unenforceable.

So, anyway, imposing sanctions can be a tricky business, but it remains an effective foreign policy tool and seems highly appropriate under the circumstances.

[Darranar]

14. Genocide. n/t

[Scairp]

15. How about "genocidal ethnic cleansing"?

That pretty much covers all the atrocities, doesn't it?

[gottaB]

17. Kerry's latest statement

Statement of John Kerry on World Refugee Day and the Need for Action in Darfur

June 20, 2004

Senator John Kerry released the following statement today on World Refugee Day and the need for action in Darfur:

World Refugee Day is a day to honor the accomplishments, strength and spirit of refugees and displaced people and draw attention to the plight of refugees around the world.

This year we focus on places refugees call home – be it homes they once left or new homes. Our nation has always drawn its strength of character from the knowledge that America – as Abraham Lincoln spoke of it – is the last best hope of earth. Through our history, millions have found their own hopes fulfilled in America. Today it is fitting that we give careful pause to remember the circumstances they have left, while we recognize that they have enriched our nation as they have come to call it their own.

The responsibility attached to Lincoln’s words does not end at our shores. Across the world, refugees need our assistance and our support. They look to America’s voice and leadership to champion their plight. And perhaps no where is the need for leadership greater than in Sudan today.

Sudan’s western Darfur region demands the world’s immediate attention and action. Rampages against defenseless civilians by government-sponsored militia have caused the deaths of as many as 30,000 people, and more than one million have been made homeless. The US government estimates that at least 300,000 more are likely to die and, in the worse case, up to one million innocent civilians could perish. Now is not the time to debate whether to call this catastrophe a genocide. Now is the time for swift and strong action.

The United States must lead the UN Security Council to immediately impose tough and effective sanctions on the government of Sudan, unless it moves without delay to act on its stated commitment to disarm militias and allows full, unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance. The Security Council should also provide authorization, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, for an international humanitarian intervention. Advance authorization will signal to the Sudanese government that the international community will not acquiesce in continued dying in Darfur and would help accelerate preparations for intervention, should that prove necessary.

Because of the urgency of the crisis we must also be ready to take additional measures to pressure the Sudanese government: time is not on the side of those displaced by the violence. The coming rains will further limit humanitarian access, and disease could kill hundreds of thousands in crowded camps.