[Peace-discuss] Fwd: ACAS "on the Edge" Commentary

[Alfred Kagan]

>Date: Tue,  6 Apr 2004 11:43:45 -0400
>From: turshen at rci.rutgers.edu
>To: turshen at rci.rutgers.edu
>Subject: ACAS "on the Edge" Commentary
>X-Originating-IP: 172.26.2.28
>
>Dear ACAS members and friends,
>From time to time we sent out commentaries in 
>our "On the Edge" series. Further
>to our alert on the situation in Darfur, Sudan, Eric Reeves has submitted this
>provocative piece on genocide--appropriately it is sent 10 years to the date
>after the unleashing of the Rwandan genocide.
>Meredeth Turshen and Michael West, Co-Chairs
>
>No Further Evasion of the Essential Question: What Will We Do in Darfur?
>
>Eric Reeves
>April 4, 2004
>
>On the very eve of the Rwandan genocide the international community seems
>finally to have found its voice in condemning the Khartoum regime's brutal,
>systematic displacement and destruction of the 
>African tribal groups of Darfur,
>primarily the Masseleit, the Zaghawa, and the Fur. The actions that stand
>condemned, considered collectively, and given the clear racial/ethnic animus
>defining them, amount to genocide---the deliberate destruction of these people
>because of who they are, "as such."  
>
>But even so, it is far from clear that the searing clarity of this genocidal
>destruction will produce an international response more adequate to the
>catastrophe than the shameful acquiesce of April 1994, when the world watched
>in dismay from a distance as 800,000 people in Rwanda were slaughtered in
>frenzied mayhem.
>
>Though the comparison to Rwanda has recently been made explicitly by Mukesh
>Kapila, now former UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, the description of
>war in Darfur that is most often offered by UN officials and others is "ethnic
>cleansing."  This is evidently meant to convey a 
>lesser degree of "criminality"
>and urgency.  Jan Egeland, UN Under-secretary General for Humanitarian
>Affairs---and notably one of the first officials 
>to call attention to the scale
>of the catastrophe in Darfur---is entirely representative:
>
>"'What we see is...the systematic depopulation of areas. People are not
>necessarily killed then. They are moved away,' Egeland said at a [April 2,
>2004] news conference. 'I would say it is ethnic 
>cleansing, but not genocide.'"
>  (Reuters, April 4, 2004)
>
>But what is happening in Darfur is not simply 
>"ethnic cleansing," any more than
>the destruction of the Jews in Eastern Europe was simply a "Säuberung," the
>Nazi euphemism for genocide (the German word means "cleansing" or "clearing").
>For given the immensely destructive consequences of "systematic depopulation"
>in rural Darfur, there is too little difference in too many cases between the
>deliberate killing of members of a "racial or ethnical group" and the
>inescapable, fully known consequences of the "systematic depopulation" of the
>members of this group.
>
>Here we must remember that the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and
>Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifies not only "killing members of a
>group" among the acts which may be "committed with intent to destroy, in whole
>or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."  The
>Convention also declares that genocide consists in actions "deliberately
>calculated to bring about conditions making life impossible [for a group]."
>
>The vast, murderous savagery of Khartoum's military campaign, and its terrible
>efficacy in "bringing about conditions making life impossible" for the African
>peoples of Darfur, is simply beyond dispute: widespread and systematic
>killings, brutal gang-rapes, destruction of seeds and agricultural implements,
>the burning and pillaging of villages, the looting of foodstuffs and cattle,
>the abducting of children, the destruction of water wells and irrigation
>systems.  All of these, especially in aggregate, are in the context of Darfur
>genocidal. 
>
>We should also recall that the Genocide 
>Convention specifies that acts "causing
>serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" are genocide.  What can
>we surmise of both the "bodily and mental harm" caused by such actions as were
>reported in this all too characteristic dispatch from the UN's Integrated
>Regional Information Networks? ---
>
>"In an attack on 27 February [2004] in the Tawilah area of northern Darfur, 30
>villages were burned to the ground, over 200 people killed and over 200 girls
>and women raped---some by up to 14 assailants 
>and in front of their fathers who
>were later killed. A further 150 women and 200 children were abducted." (UN
>Integrated Regional Information Networks, March 22, 2004)
>
>This terrifying vignette of unimaginable suffering and destruction is but one
>among scores and scores of reports that have 
>emerged, despite Khartoum's effort
>to deny all news and humanitarian access to rural Darfur.
>
>The Genocide Convention also specifies that genocide consists in "forcibly
>transferring children of the group to another 
>group."  We can't know the number
>of abductions, but in addition to the 350 women and children reported abducted
>in the single instance above, Human Rights Watch has noted that "refugees'
>testimonies have also noted an alarming number 
>of abductions of young girls and
>boys" ("Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan," page 30).
>
>All of these actions have been reported on 
>authoritatively, on an extremely wide
>scale, and over many months now.  Those reporting include Amnesty
>International, Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres, the
>International Crisis Group, various senior UN officials, the US Agency for
>International Development, and increasingly numerous journalists.  On April 2,
>2004 Human Rights Watch issued what is perhaps the most comprehensive
>indictment to date: "Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan" (available
>at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/02/sudan8389.htm).
>
>Human Rights Watch begins its report by 
>declaring unambiguously that, "militias
>backed by the government of Sudan are committing crimes against humanity in
>Darfur" (page 1).  The opening statement continues by declaring that:
>
>"Using indiscriminate aerial bombardment, militia and army raiding, and denial
>of humanitarian assistance, the government of Sudan and allied Arab militia,
>called janjaweed, are implementing a strategy of ethnic-based murder, rape and
>forcible displacement of civilians in Darfur." (page 1)
>
>The International Crisis Group has spoken of "ethnic warfare," and the
>"systematic nature of attacks on civilians on the basis of their ethnicity
>("Darfur Rising: Sudan's New Crisis" [Brussels/Nairobi], March 25, 2004, pages
>15, 25).
>
>The United Nations, which has been outspoken on Darfur for months, made wire
>service and even newspaper headlines with Jan Egeland's declaration from UN
>headquarters that "Sudan Is Tolerating Ethnic Cleansing" (New York Times
>[United Nations], April 3, 2004).  Egeland declared that Khartoum's militia
>allies were, "using 'scorched earth tactics,' deliberately destroying food and
>humanitarian supplies and attacking refugee 
>centers in a program of 'systematic
>depopulation.'  'I consider this ethnic cleansing,' [Egeland said]" (New York
>Times, April 3, 2004). 
>
>But in all of this there is a hesitancy to declare that these realities
>constitute genocide.  There is in the use of the phrase "ethnic cleansing," or
>"ethnic warfare," or "ethnic-based murder" an 
>apparent unwillingness to declare
>the whole of what we know, or what we can with moral certainty surmise of
>Darfur's terrible realities.  What accounts for this?  The answer is not
>entirely clear.  Presumably on the part of the 
>UN and Western governments there
>is a concern that to declare that these realities are genocidal would be to
>make continued inaction by the international community politically untenable.
>But here we should remember that in one of the earliest uses of the term
>"ethnic cleaning," the UN General Assembly declared in Resolution 47/121 of
>December 18, 1992 that, "the abhorrent policy of 'ethnic cleansing' is a form
>of genocide" (Paragraph 9 of the Preamble to the Resolution).
>
>Certainly any inclination to continue with the phrase "ethnic cleansing," as a
>way of asserting that a lesser crime than genocide is being committed, must
>come to terms with a very recent, authoritative, and shocking assessment
>offered by the US Agency for International 
>Development.  This assessment was to
>have been rendered publicly by USAID Assistant Administrator Roger Winter in
>remarks at last week's opening session of peace talks in N'Djamena (Chad)
>between Khartoum and the two major Darfur insurgency groups.  Predictably,
>Khartoum boycotted the opening session because of "unacceptable" international
>presence (the US and the European Union), and the regime has subsequently
>instructed the Chadian government to deny entry visas to political
>representatives of one of the insurgency groups, thus making highly unlikely
>any progress on the most urgent agenda item, a humanitarian cease-fire.
>
>But Khartoum's diplomatic recalcitrance also does nothing to change the
>realities of Darfur; indeed, it reveals only a determination not to allow the
>international community to assess those realities from within Darfur.
>Khartoum's determination to obscure by all means possible the reality of
>genocide in Darfur makes Mr. Winter's USAID assessment all the more important.
>In this assessment he stressed one terrifying 
>statistic: even with an immediate
>humanitarian cease-fire, the US Agency for International Development now
>estimates that 100,000 more people will still die from the conflict in
>Darfur--this in addition to the tens of thousands who have already perished.
>Because of Khartoum's deliberate destruction of food assets, water wells and
>irrigation systems; because a terrified population will not be able to plant
>crops or reap a significant harvest following the upcoming rainy season; and
>because the rains will prevent ground transport 
>to many outlying areas, 100,000
>people will die.
>
>They will not die of machete wounds, gunshots, or be clubbed to death as in
>Rwanda; but they will have been killed no less deliberately by a military
>strategy that Khartoum has relentlessly followed, both in using its own
>official military assets (including frequent aerial bombardment of civilian
>targets), but in the purposeful directing of its Arab militia allies (the
>"janjaweed") in the countless attacks that have produced the present
>catastrophe.
>
>In short, knowing full well the consequences of such a strategy, Khartoum has
>engaged in a military campaign that has "deliberately inflicted on the African
>tribal groups of Darfur conditions of life calculated to bring about their
>physical destruction in whole or in part."
>
>This is genocide.
>
>Neither the euphemizing obligations of 
>diplomats, nor the constraints imposed by
>various institutional mandates---governmental 
>and non-governmental---can change
>this reality. 
>
>It was precisely such diffidence, coupled with indecision and moral failure,
>that ten years ago produced international acquiescence in the slaughter, by
>Hutu extremists, of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate 
>Hutus in Rwanda.  Unable to say
>the word---genocide---it was easier not to act, easier not to accept the
>obligations that are stipulated in the Genocide Convention for "contracting
>parties:
>
>"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of
>peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they
>undertake to prevent and to punish."  (Article 1, UN Convention of the
>Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948)
>
>But of course until genocide has been declared, the "contracting parties"
>(including the US) are not obligated to "undertake to prevent and to punish"
>the genocidaires operating in Darfur.  This is the context in which we must
>seek to understand why no organization or government has, to date, proposed a
>single course of action that will not be fully undermined should Khartoum
>intransigently assert the "rights" of national 
>sovereignty.  There are abundant
>calls for "informing," "condemning," 
>"requesting," "calling upon," "insisting,"
>"recommending,"---even "ensuring."  But inevitably even such "ensuring" is
>simply part of a "recommendation" that has no provision for enforcement or
>implementation or even means of pressuring for compliance.
>
>Most conspicuously, there is no voice calling 
>for humanitarian intervention--the
>cross-border provision of urgently needed humanitarian assistance, civilian
>protection, and the creation of critically 
>important safe havens for the almost
>1 million displaced, both in Chad and in Darfur.  And it is here that the
>distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and 
>genocide cuts deeply in implication,
>given the explicit provisions for "prevention" in the Genocide Convention.
>
>To be sure, Norway and the US seemed to be approaching an articulation of the
>need for humanitarian intervention in early February 2004:
>
>"The United States reaffirms its commitment to addressing the immediate
>protection and assistance needs of those in Darfur, as well as throughout
>Sudan, including humanitarian cross border operations if assistance cannot be
>provided through Sudan."  (Statement of US AID Administrator Andrew Natsios,
>from the Press Office of USAID, February 3, 2004)
>
>Norway's Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Petersen spoke in similarly urgent
>terms at the time:
>
>"Norway is extremely concerned about the further deterioration of the already
>dramatic humanitarian situation in Darfur 
>province in western Sudan in the last
>few days. Norway deplores the recent bombing of the town of Tine, which
>continues the pattern of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and the serious
>breaches of human rights that are constantly being reported. [ ] Norway will
>together with other donors *do what is necessary to provide humanitarian
>relief* and protection for the population of Darfur [emphasis added]."
>(Press release: Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 4, 2004)
>
>But these commitments have not been reiterated, 
>and no planning is evident that
>would make good on these commitments.  Voice of America has recently reported
>that, "US defense officials are closely monitoring developments in Sudan's
>troubled Darfur region, but say there are no plans at present for any military
>response to the humanitarian crisis there" (Voice of America, April 1, 2004).
>
>Here we must bear in mind that any planning for humanitarian intervention will
>need to take account of the immense difficulties created by the seasonal rains
>that are due in about a month; these rains will make ground transport in many
>places virtually impossible.  Indeed, logistics in general will be
>nightmarishly difficult.  Moreover, Chad's permission must be secured for such
>an operation.  Given the weak Chad government's close relationship with
>Khartoum, this would require robust diplomatic 
>pressure on President Idris Deby
>from France---but there has been no sign of such a commitment from Paris, even
>in the wake of French Foreign Minister Dominique de
>Villepin's recent trip (late February 2004) to the region.
>
>In short, it seems unlikely that humanitarian 
>intervention will occur without a
>finding of genocide.  But then we urgently need a much more compelling
>explanation of why, given the overwhelming body of evidence before the
>international community, what is occurring in 
>Darfur is not genocide.  And such
>explanation cannot be a glib distinction between displacement and
>"depopulation," on the one hand, and human destruction on the other---not when
>the former so clearly and consequentially implies the latter.
>
>All the current anguish over the Rwandan genocide, all the reflections on what
>could and should have been done, all the 
>genuflection on lessons learned or not
>learned---all this is incinerated in the agony of the ongoing,
>ethnically/racially animated destruction of tens of thousands of human beings
>in Darfur.
>
>Who will explain to the people of Darfur why it 
>was possible for the US and the
>Europeans, without UN authorization, to intervene in Kosovo (where perhaps
>altogether 10,000 people died) but not in Darfur, where many times this number
>will certainly die?  Who will explain why this has nothing to do with the fact
>that the victims of the genocide are Africans?  Who will explain why this
>devaluation of human lives is not ultimately a terrible racism?
>
>Who will explain why an assertion of Sudanese national sovereignty by the
>viciously tyrannical National Islamic Front regime---which came to power by
>military coup, deposing an elected government---trumps the moral significance
>of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Darfur?  Who will explain why a
>regime that has not observed a signed cease-fire, refuses to begin substantive
>peace talks, and refuses to commit to a humanitarian cease-fire is being given
>more diplomatic breathing space in which to pursue genocidal destruction?
>
>Who will explain to the people of Darfur how long the catastrophe will be
>permitted to accelerate without more than hortatory language from the
>international community?  Who will tell the people of Darfur whether or not
>there is a threshold of human destruction at which the international community
>will respond with humanitarian intervention?  And if so, what is that
>threshold?  Having long surpassed the total for Kosovo, and with a further
>100,000 lives to be lost because of Khartoum's present destruction of the
>agricultural economy and medical resources, Darfur and its people will wonder:
>is the number 150,000---a figure that seems virtually certain to be exceeded?
>Perhaps it is 200,000?  Perhaps the half-way point in the figure for Rwanda,
>400,000?
>
>Are these numbers anything but a reflection of 
>moral madness on the part of the
>international community?  And yet as Human Rights Watch has just asserted,
>"almost 1 million Darfurian civilians have been forced to flee their homes in
>the past fourteen months." ("Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan,"
>page 1).  And the UN puts the figure of those described as "war-affected" at 3
>million.  Who can say that the final total, in the absence of forceful
>international action and with Khartoum's continued intransigence, will not
>ultimately bear comparison with the numbers of Rwanda?
>
>These many questions all reduce to one:
>
>Is the international community prepared to allow Khartoum's assertion of
>national sovereignty to outweigh the significance of hundreds of thousands of
>lives in Darfur? 
>
>Given all that we know about Darfur, and all that can be inferred with moral
>certainty, and given the present refusal by any government or international
>organization to call for humanitarian intervention, we have a default answer:
>the world indeed again stands prepared merely to witness vast,
>racially/ethnically driven human destruction.  And until there is a clear,
>decisive call for urgent humanitarian intervention, this answer will stand. 
>
>The issue of the day is not remembering Rwanda, but understanding why we are
>still prepared to accept genocide in Africa.
>
>Eric Reeves
>Smith College
>Northampton, MA  01063
>
>413-585-3326
>ereeves at smith.edu
>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu