Eight days ago on that Sunday I was still reeling from my recent trip to Jordan, dealing with my chaotic travel home from Philadelphia, etc., and come to think of it I don’t think I even read the WaPo that day. I should have, because it carried Emily Wax’s extremely interesting piece 5 Truths about Darfur. (Hat-tip to a Jeffersonian friend who urged me to read it.)
She is the WaPo’s East Africa bureau chief, and a reporter on Africa whose writing I have come to admire over the past few years.
She writes,
- much of the conventional wisdom surrounding the conflict — including the religious, ethnic and economic factors that drive it — fails to match the realities on the ground. Tens of thousands have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced, with no end to the conflict in sight.
Note, please, her carefully non-alarmist representation of the number of people who have died because of the conflict in Darfur: “tens of thousands”. That, as opposed to the decidedly alarmist figures that are bandied about with no accompanying evidence… I have even seen some unauthenticated reports of “200,000 killed”.
Even one person killed because of political violence is bad enough. “Tens of thousands”, and we should be very concerned indeed. But Wax is close to the ground, and close to the aid coordinators and AU officers who are probably the people who have the best sources of information inside Darfur on the true scale of the casualties.
As a matter of basic integrity and ethics in human-rights work opr journalism, one should always try to get the best authenticated sources of information possible, and when using estimates of casualties to err on the side of conservatism
Anyway, here’s how Wax continues:.
- Here are five truths to challenge the most common misconceptions about Darfur:
1 Nearly everyone is Muslim…
2 Everyone is black
Although the conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, everyone in Darfur appears dark-skinned, at least by the usual American standards. The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers. Each tribe gives itself the label of “African” or “Arab” based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselves Arab.
Sudan melds African and Arab identities. As Arabs began to dominate the government in the past century and gave jobs to members of Arab tribes, being Arab became a political advantage; some tribes adopted that label regardless of their ethnic affiliation. More recently, rebels have described themselves as Africans fighting an Arab government. Ethnic slurs used by both sides in recent atrocities have riven communities that once lived together and intermarried.
“Black Americans who come to Darfur always say, ‘So where are the Arabs? Why do all these people look black?’ ” said Mahjoub Mohamed Saleh, editor of Sudan’s independent Al-Ayam newspaper. “The bottom line is that tribes have intermarried forever in Darfur. Men even have one so-called Arab wife and one so-called African. Tribes started labeling themselves this way several decades ago for political reasons. Who knows what the real bloodlines are in Darfur?”
3 It’s all about politics
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.
A charismatic college professor and former speaker of parliament, Turabi has long been one of Bashir’s main political rivals and an influential figure in Sudan. He has been fingered as an extremist; before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Turabi often referred to Osama bin Laden as a hero. More recently, the United Nations and human rights experts have accused Turabi of backing one of Darfur’s key rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement, in which some of his top former students are leaders…
“Darfur is simply the battlefield for a power struggle over Khartoum,” said Ghazi Suleiman, a Sudanese human rights lawyer. “That’s why the government hit back so hard. They saw Turabi’s hand, and they want to stay in control of Sudan at any cost.”
4 This conflict is international
China and Chad have played key roles in the Darfur conflict.
In 1990, Chad’s Idriss Deby came to power by launching a military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrowing President Hissan Habre. Deby hails from the elite Zaghawa tribe, which makes up one of the Darfur rebel groups trying to topple the government. So when the conflict broke out, Deby had to decide whether to support Sudan or his tribe. He eventually chose his tribe.
Now the Sudanese rebels have bases in Chad; I interviewed them in towns full of Darfurians who tried to escape the fighting. Meanwhile, Khartoum is accused of supporting Chad’s anti-Deby rebels, who have a military camp in West Darfur. (Sudan’s government denies the allegations.) Last week, bands of Chadian rebels nearly took over the capital, N’Djamena. When captured, some of the rebels were carrying Sudanese identification.
Meanwhile, Sudan is China’s fourth-biggest supplier of imported oil, and that relationship carries benefits…
5 The “genocide” label made it worse
This portion is particularly interesting. Wax makes, basically, two arguments under this heading. Firstly,
- in September 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred to the conflict as a “genocide.” Rather than spurring greater international action, that label only seems to have strengthened Sudan’s rebels; they believe they don’t need to negotiate with the government and think they will have U.S. support when they commit attacks. Peace talks have broken down seven times, partly because the rebel groups have walked out of negotiations. And Sudan’s government has used the genocide label to market itself in the Middle East as another victim of America’s anti-Arab and anti-Islamic policies.
In other words, Powell’s attaching of the ‘genocide’ label has been extremely politically polarizing within Sudan, hardening the attitudes of both “sides” to the conflict in Darfur and setting back the chances for reaching a negotiated peace…
And secondly, she makes this,quite distinct argument under the rubric of No. 5:
- Perhaps most counterproductive, the United States has failed to follow up with meaningful action. “The word ‘genocide’ was not an action word; it was a responsibility word,” Charles R. Snyder, the State Department’s senior representative on Sudan, told me in late 2004. “There was an ethical and moral obligation, and saying it underscored how seriously we took this.” The Bush administration’s recent idea of sending several hundred NATO advisers to support African Union peacekeepers falls short of what many advocates had hoped for.
“We called it a genocide and then we wine and dine the architects of the conflict by working with them on counterterrorism and on peace in the south,” said Ted Dagne, an Africa expert for the Congressional Research Service. “I wish I knew a way to improve the situation there. But it’s only getting worse.”
I think Wax is probably right here. After all, the whole point of the 1948 Convention on Genocide was that it actually obligates its signatories to act to “prevent, suppress, or punish” any act of genocide regardless of where in the world it is committed… That was why there was such a big fuss made in 1994 over whether the Clinton administration would declare that the killings in Rwanda constituted a genocide, or not. At least Clinton and his people seemed to take quite seriously the commitment that, if the Rwandan killings did indeed constitute genocide, then the US would be obligated to intervene to suppress that genocide.
As for the Bush administration– as we all know– it takes the power and truth-value of words extremely lightly when it chooses. I can imagine Karl Rove saying something like,”Sure, call it a genocide if that seems politically advantageous to do, here at home, with all these people clamoring for it. But you don’t think we’re going to do anything about it, do you?”
And thus, the value of the whole approach pioneered by the authors of the Genocide Convention has been completely annulled. (Rove: “Who cares? The Genocide Convention is no better than the Kyoto Treaty or the NPT, is it?”)
…Anyway, belatedly, I’d like to thank Emily Wax for a well-grounded and well-argued article there. I wish I’d read it earlier.
Emily Wax seems to be contradicting an earlier story she wrote in 2004:
‘We Want to Make a Light Baby’; Arab Militiamen in Sudan Said to Use Rape as Weapon of Ethnic Cleansing
Everyone in Darfur might “look alike” to Westerners, but it seems the people there on both sides have no problem telling the differences, which are openly being touted and targetted by the Janjaweed.
In general, TT, understanding any complex human phenomenon is nearly always accretative process… So I would tend to give more credence to what Wax writes today than what she wrote in June 2004.
Also, it is quite possible that what she saw in June 2004 is different from what she sees today. But what she sees today is, obviously, a better description of the current situation the Darfuris are dealing with than anything she wrote in June 2004.
What is your basis of expertise and understanding on these matters?
What is your basis of expertise and understanding on these matters?
Wow. How condescending. Nice.
Umm, what is yours?
Why is the statement “everyone is black” even an issue?
It’s inherently racist to even presume that would take away from the gravity of the situation for the people being slaughtered and raped.
In Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia, for example, everyone was white.
In Rwanda, everyone was black.
In the Holocaust, everyone (unless you ask the Nazis) was white.
It isn’t always the case that it’s “lights” vs. “darks” or vice versa. But that doesn’t make the situation any less tragic.
One needs “expertise” “on these matters” to discern that’s a complete non-issue?
It’s obvious that the two sides do not view eachother in any way shape or form as the same ethnic group – even though their religion is nominally the same and their skin color does not appear all that different to Western eyes.
Most Westerners probably couldn’t tell Hutus and Tutsis apart either (but they sure could) – and that didn’t save the Tutsis from mass slaughter.
And as for the Darfurian rebels not wanting to accept a peace accord on first blush, how on earth can they accept any agreement from a government that insists (wink, wink) it has nothing to do with the Janjaweed anyway?
It doesn’t make sense. The Abuja talks presume the Kharthoum government will to the very fact it denies (that they have been backing the Janjaweed), and then expects them to uphold an agreement they’ve been saying for years they would not be able to enforce even if they signed it.
It’s insane.
The Bush administration is going to do nothing, anyway. Neither is Europe, who’s been silent in the face of massive killings, again.
So the “not much to see here” crowd is wasting its time if it’s going to play off the “agenda” of the Bush administration against the possiblity of doing anything to save the lives of the next batch of Darfuris who will fall victim to the Janjaweed (reminder to those with an “agenda”: everyone is black! unbelievable, if it weren’t so sad), “peace agreement” or not.
Just a decade after Rwanda, and almost nothing can and will be done. It’s sad.
Even if it is “only” “Tens of thousands” as opposed to an “alarmist” number – umm, what is your “basis of expertise and understanding” for not being “alarmed” by “tens of thousands” of people being killed in an ethnic conflict?
How is “tens of thousands” not alarming?
Whoops, different nic. Same poster.
But honestly – this is so frustrating.
What can be done?
America can’t intervene anyway. The world can not (and should not – yes, sadly) trust us.
Who can help these people?
Why does their color matter?
Why does the fact that they call eachother blacks and arabs but the people calling themselves arabs are darker than what we traditionally think of as arabs matter?
How can someone stand up for the (only) “tens of thousands” of people being killed, and the women being raped, and the people in refugee camps without being slammed as having an agenda?
Doesn’t that ensure that more people will die?
More people will die anyway, but the Kharthoum government has been saying that it’s an “internal” matter.
On the other, you have the Bush administration blaming China and Russia (because it’s convenient) for obstruction at the U.N.
On the other hand, you have the Bush administration making “security” agreements with the Kharthoum govenrment after 9/11:
Sudan, CIA Forge Close Ties, Despite Rights Abuses
And so yet again, nothing will be done.
And yet, “they’re all black” is supposed to be an issue of consequence. If anything, that should motivate us to do more – since we keep failing that continent again and again.
Sorry – it’s just amazingly frustrating.
I think the “they’re all black” statement along with the “they’re all Muslims” was meant to defuse the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments that seem to piggyback onof the laudable concern many people have for the horrific slaughter in Darfur. Muslims and Arabs are the last groups it is almost respectable to make racist comments about in the US, so I think it’s important to express concern over Darfur while being careful not to contribute to the bigotry some people may have on the subject. I think that’s what Helena is trying to do here.
Exact usage differs from place to place and ‘social constructions of reality’ count here, but generally speaking ‘Arab’ is a linguistic term not an ethnic term so it should hardly be surprising that Arabs come in many shades of skin colour. Those who went to Darfur expecting to find a visible Arab/African difference were not well informed. Of course the cultural and linguistic shading in Darfur is especially complex.
but generally speaking ‘Arab’ is a linguistic term not an ethnic term so it should hardly be surprising that Arabs come in many shades of skin colour.
Exactly – making it even less of an issue. But even as used as an “ethnic” term, large (numberically and geographically diverse) ethnicities are not monolothic – it seems quasi-racist to assume so.
Someone of Swedish descent born in Stockholm generally does not look like the twin of someone of Sicilian descent born in Palermo. But they are both European and both “White.”
Meanwhile, Sudan is a member of the Arab League (are they going to get kicked out now that certain Westerners are sure they’re “Black” and not “Arab” because they don’t fit the traditional Arab stereotype?) The Arab League is a huge player in the conflict. No one should hate anyone in say, Morocco, or Arab Americans or anyone at all – even citizens in Kharthoum – because the word “Arab” is used in this conflict.
But the people in Sudan are using it. The Kharthoum government and the Janjaweed refer to themselves as Arab and speak Arabic.
Maybe we shouldn’t use the words Arab and Arabic so they’re not offended.
But Helena (I don’t want to comment on your Dennis Ross thread), but weren’t you decrying self-censorship a few threads ago?
Meanwhile, while we discuss delicate sensibilities, another day passes where nothing happens to stop the conflict.
“Alarmist” means something quite different from “alarming”… Of course I’m alarmed when tens of thousands people die from violence-related causes.
Also, when I asked above about the basis of TT’s wisdom and understanding in this matter, it was an honest and simple enquiry. One problem with people who post anonymously on comments boards is that we have no way at all to judge the contribution they’re capable of making to the discussion unless they tell us something like, “Based on my years of experience working with Catholic Relief services”, or “As a prosecutor in dade County, i’d have to say… ” or whatever.
A shorthand way of doing that is to link to a homepage. Thus, for example, in our discussions here we can easily find out what Jonathan or Dominic’s experience and depth of wisdom are.
I haven’t written anything of my own here about the “Arab vs. African” issue. Yes, I know that many (not all) of the people on the pro-government side are self-defined “Arabs”. (Many might also define themselves as “Africans”, since the two categories are not always mutually exclusive.) On the anti-government side, there are probably also a good number of mother-tongue Arabic speakers, as well as speakers of other languages. From what I know it is a complex mosaic of overlapping identities– but what seems most determinative is whether people are pastroalists or cultivators… The divide between those two groups is an old, old one– everywhere in the world.
What I objected to earlier in the “Save Darfur” campaign’s “Unity Statement” was their simple dichotomizing into Arab vs. African, and their one-sided (anti-Arab) finger-pointing.
What I objected to earlier in the “Save Darfur” campaign’s “Unity Statement” was their simple dichotomizing into Arab vs. African, and their one-sided (anti-Arab) finger-pointing.
Well, when you are trying to break down what’s happening in Darfur, specifically, and Sudan, generally, (since the Sudan is in Africa) everyone involved is “African.” And yes, the Save Darfur campaign is aimed at protecting the side that is getting slaughtered – not the side doing the ethnic cleansing (that, sure, has been subject to rebel reprisals – but nothing even close to the same scale, as well). They’re “Saving Darfuris” – not “Saving the Janjaweed.”
And “African” and “Arab” are not mutually exclusive terms, as many North African nations are “Arab” countries. Do you not think the “finger pointing” should be at the Janjaweed and the support of the Kharthoum government, regardless of what labels are used to distinguish and educate people? (Labels that both parties freely and proudly call themselves, by the way).
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (a signatory to the unity statement) – is an umbrella Muslim group in Southern California who’s leadership is currently, and traditionally has been, Arab, although the organization is multiethnic.
This is their press release on Darfur from 2004:
I don’t think anyone can fairly accuse MPAC of being anti-Arab – just being honest on the issue and wanting to stop it at all costs. Maybe they’re trying to garner support in their own community to put pressure on people they identify with in the region and conflict to stop doing what they’re doing and take ownership of the issue – not in a negative way, but in a truthful way. Denial doesn’t help anyone, except the Janjaweed and Kharthoum.
One last (hopefully) thing.
So people do not want to call the Janjaweed and the Kharthoum government the identifying terms that they themselves use to describe themselves in the name of allegedly stirring up “anti-Arab hatred.”
Better to use a term they do not use to describe themselves, to avoid that, and just call them “black” or “African.”
No one’s worried about stirring up “anti-Black hatred” or “anti-African hatred”?
I don’t see how this is about “demonizing” or “stirring up hatred” anyway – it’s about stopping the rape, the killing, the burning of villages.
Sudan happens (I guess – it’s probably news to them that they’re not Arab, but only black or African) to be a member of The Arab League – pressure is rightly put on the doorstep of the Kharthoum government and the Arab League (which frequently talks up other tragedies under their purview in the Middle East and North Africa but is furiously dodging and obstructing on this one) a) first acknowledge what’s happening (which still hasn’t really occurred), and b) help stop it – regardless of whether it’s somehow wrong to refer to the Sudanese factions as they refer to themselves.
Don’t you want the Arab League to feel some pressure to help here?
TT,
As much as you alarmed by what’s happened in Sudan this I noticed from your post, I hope you do same in regards to US invasion which cost more lives and more people displaced from Iraq
Same as in Palestine there are peoples killed every day and there is a Human Made Crisis there because US government put pressures on all the governments include the friendly regimes in Arab world for the sanctioned the Palestinians on their land. In both cases there is no “Janjaweed” neither they are “black” or “African.”.
In the end we all humans TT , I thinks talking with colour about a sign of identifying humans, I see it some sort of insulting in these days with the complex politics and human experiences and suffering because of their skin colour and religious believes and other things, we should over this to understanding and respecting each other.
To refreshes the memories
“وقال عباس، لإذاعة الجزائر الرسمية، إن فرنسا في 8 آلاف قرية، مشيراً إلى أن باريس لا تزال ترفض إعادة الأرشيف الوطني إلى الجزائر، مبدياً تخوفه من أن يتعرّض هذا الأرشيف إلى التزوير لطمس الحقائق.
وأوضح عباس أن الجيش الفرنسي ، مؤكداً أن الجزائر أنشأت حتى الآن 1200 مقبرة للشهداء. ”
http://www.assafir.com/iso/today/world/227.html
salah, you write:
“I hope you do same in regards to US invasion which cost more lives and more people displaced from Iraq
Same as in Palestine there are peoples killed every day and there is a Human Made Crisis there because US government put pressures on all the governments include the friendly regimes in Arab world for the sanctioned the Palestinians on their land. In both cases there is no “Janjaweed” neither they are “black” or “African.”.”
If you want to talk about separate conflicts – that’s fine. Although I don’t think a discussion about Darfur necessarily should include a “yes, but other people are in conflict too.”
But yes, I think the Iraq war was a bad idea. I admit I like the fact that Iraqis got to vote in elections, but I would also say that – because of all the violence that’s ensued – those elections definitely do not make up for the losses that country has suffered.
As for Palestine, I try and stay as optimistic as possible that the situation can be resolved but the domestic political considerations on both sides make things difficult. I expect nothing from the Bush administration, but I hope whomever succeeds it will engage themselves much more in peacemaking.
But back to Darfur, “anti-Arab” incitement and the conflation of issues (since you brought that up), I have noticed reading the thread topics here that there’s very little concern for “stirring up anti-Jewish/Israeli/Zionist” hatred when talking about a particular conflict (that you happened to bring up), to the extent that naming the various participants to a conflict (which is the original issue here) can in fact do that.
I haven’t read a lot of your posts, but is that something you feel you take care to guard against when commenting on Israel/Palestine?
Or is that just something we should only consider when writing about the Sudan?
Think about it – the skepticism of the earlier Darfur post solely because Helena “note(d) that many Jewish-American organizations are among those that have joined the (increasingly politicized, anti-Khartoum) US campaign to “Save Darfur” that was launched recently by Elie Wiesel and that is organizing a big march in DC this Sunday. If you go to the campaign’s Unity Statement, you will see descriptions of atrocities committed by government and pro-government forces, but no mention at all of violence by anti-government forces.”
Umm, how many refugee camps are there for people subject to violence by anti-government forces? How many people have been displaced because of violence by anti-government forces?
The insinuation of a nefarious “agenda” because “many Jewish-American organizations” are a part of it. Meanhwile, the Unity Statement was signed by the Muslim Public Affairs Council and closely mirrors their Press Release. They didn’t talk about the “violence by anti-government forces” either. Because they too are focused on ending the conflict which means saving the Darfuris, not the Kharthoum government or the Janjaweed.
It seems exactly what’s being complained about is occurring here – just against other non-favored groups.
KarlikSuka4