[Peace-discuss] Darfur on Democracy Now
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Mon Jun 4 15:28:01 CDT 2007
Bush has ordered new sanctions to be placed on the Sudanese government,
probably because there was a danger of peace breaking out in Darfur.
The US action seems meant to torpedo such arrangements and to aid the US
imperial project in our new "Africa Command." Today's Democracy Now
presented the first critical discussion they've run of the "Save Darfur
Coalition," which has been featured on DN a good bit.
"...I’m struck by the fact that the largest political movement against
mass violence on US campuses is on Darfur and not on Iraq. And it
puzzles me, because most of these students, almost all of these
students, are American citizens, and I had always thought that they
should have greater responsibility, they should feel responsibility, for
mass violence which is the result of their own government's policies.
And I ask myself, 'Why not?' I ask myself, 'How do they discuss mass
violence in Iraq and options in Iraq?' And they discuss it by asking --
agonizing over what would happen if American troops withdrew from Iraq.
Would there be more violence? Less violence? But there is no such
agonizing over Darfur, because Darfur is a place without history, Darfur
is a place without politics. Darfur is simply a dot on the map. It is
simply a place, a site, where perpetrator confronts victim. And the
perpetrator’s name is Arab, and the victim’s name is African. And it is
easy to demonize. It is easy to hold a moral position which is emptied
of its political content."
The transcript follows. --CGE
==============================
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Darfur. President Bush has ordered new
sanctions to be placed on the Sudanese government for its role in the
violence in Darfur. Last week's announcement blocks thirty-one companies
tied to the Sudanese government from using the US banking system.
The sanctions were seen as a victory for the Save Darfur Coalition, a US
group leading a vocal campaign pressuring the White House to take
action. But the New York Times reported Saturday some of Save Darfur's
public efforts have angered aid groups working on the ground in Sudan.
The aid groups say Save Darfur's call for imposing a no-flight zone
could lead to a halt in aid flights and put their workers at risk. Aid
groups have also criticized Save Darfur for not spending its
multi-million dollar budget on aid to Darfur's refugees.
Mahmood Mamdani is one of the world's most prominent Africa scholars.
Earlier this year, he wrote a major piece for the London Review of Books
called “The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency.” He was
born in Uganda and now splits his time between Uganda and New York,
where he is a professor at Columbia University. Mahmood Mamdani stopped
by our firehouse studio Friday. I began by asking him about the name of
his article, “The Politics of Naming.”
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: I think the larger question is the names --
genocide, in particular -- come into being against a background of the
twentieth century and mass slaughter of the twentieth century, and
particularly the Holocaust. And against that background, Lemkin
convinced the international community, and particularly states in the
international community, have an obligation to intervene when there is
genocide. He’s successful in getting the international community to
adopt a resolution on this.
Then follows the politics around genocide. And the politics
around genocide is, when is the slaughter of civilians a genocide or
not? Which particular slaughter is going to be named genocide, and which
one is not going to be named genocide? So if you look at the last ten
years and take some examples of mass slaughter -- for example, the mass
slaughter in Iraq, which is -- in terms of numbers, at least -- no less
than what is going on in Sudan; or the mass slaughter in Congo, which,
in terms of numbers, is probably ten times what happened, what has been
happening in Darfur. But none of these have been named as genocide. Only
the slaughter in Darfur has been named as genocide. So there is
obviously a politics around this naming, and that’s the politics that I
was interested in.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think this politics is?
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, I think that what’s happening is that
genocide is being instrumentalized by the biggest power on the earth
today, which is the United States. It is being instrumentalized in a way
that mass slaughters which implicate its adversaries are being named as
genocide and those which implicate its friends or its proxies are not
being named as genocide. And that is not what Lemkin had in mind.
AMY GOODMAN: The simplifying of the conflict by the US media, you
write extensively about this, who the sides are.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, I was struck by the fact -- because I live
nine months in New York and three months in Kampala, and every morning I
open the New York Times, and I read about sort of violence against
civilians, atrocities against civilians, and there are two places that I
read about -- one is Iraq, and the other is Darfur -- sort of
constantly, day after day, and week after week. And I’m struck by the
fact that the largest political movement against mass violence on US
campuses is on Darfur and not on Iraq. And it puzzles me, because most
of these students, almost all of these students, are American citizens,
and I had always thought that they should have greater responsibility,
they should feel responsibility, for mass violence which is the result
of their own government's policies. And I ask myself, “Why not?” I ask
myself, “How do they discuss mass violence in Iraq and options in Iraq?”
And they discuss it by asking -- agonizing over what would happen if
American troops withdrew from Iraq. Would there be more violence? Less
violence? But there is no such agonizing over Darfur, because Darfur is
a place without history, Darfur is a place without politics. Darfur is
simply a dot on the map. It is simply a place, a site, where perpetrator
confronts victim. And the perpetrator’s name is Arab, and the victim’s
name is African. And it is easy to demonize. It is easy to hold a moral
position which is emptied of its political content. This bothered me,
and so I wrote about it.
AMY GOODMAN: Columbia University Professor Mahmood Mamdani. We’ll be
back with him in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with Columbia University
Professor Mahmood Mamdani, one of the world’s most prominent Africa
scholars, speaking about Darfur in relation to other conflicts around
the world.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, let’s begin with the numbers of the dead,
OK? The only group in a position to estimate how many people have died
in Darfur is UNICEF, because UNICEF is the only one that did a
comprehensive survey in 2005 in Darfur. Everybody else only knows the
piece of ground on which they work and will then extrapolate from it,
like any other NGO, like Oxfam or Medecins Sans Frontieres or World Food
Program. The WFP estimate was 200,000. Out of these 200,000, the WPF
report tells you that roughly about 20% died of actually being killed,
of violence, and 80% died mainly from starvation and from diseases. And
normally in our understanding of genocide, we put both those together
and look at them as a result of the violence, because the violence
prevents the medicine going in, etc., except in the case of Darfur, it’s
not a single-cause situation.
Darfur is also the place which has been hit hard by global
warming. The UN commission which sat on global warming very recently
spoke of Darfur as the first major crisis of global warming. In other
words, from the late 1970s you have had a significant desertification,
and you’ve been having in the north of Darfur basically a situation
where people’s simply entire livelihoods are destroyed, and which has
been one of the elements, because it has driven the nomadic population
in the north down into the south. So how many people are dying from
desertification? How many people are dying from the violence that has
been unleashed through this civil war in Darfur?
Second element in this is that there’s a civil war going on in
Darfur. There are two rebel movements, and both rebel movements were
born in the aftermath of the peace in the south. And those who were
unwilling to accept the peace in the south, who thought the peace in the
south should have included a resolution for all of Sudan, particularly
for Darfur and not simply for the south, they were the inspiration
behind the two movements that developed. One movement, the Sudan
Liberation Army, was a movement strongly connected with the SPLA in the
south, especially with those sections of the SPLA who were not happy
with the partial nature of the settlement in the south.
And the other movement --
AMY GOODMAN: The SPLA is…?
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: The SPLA, sorry, is the Sudan People's
Liberation Army, which had organized and led the guerrilla war in the
south for several decades under John Garang.
The second movement was the Justice and Equality Movement. The
Justice and Equality Movement, unlike the SLA, which is a secular
movement, Justice and Equality is an Islamist movement. And it was a
break-off from the regime in the Sudan. It was a break-off between two
sections of the regime, the military and the civilian section, and
particularly the section led by the chief ideologue, Hassan al-Turabi,
who split from the military wing and was the inspiration behind the
formation of the Justice and Equality Movement. So you have, in a way, a
very strong Islamist rebel movement and you have a strong secular rebel
movement, and these two began their operations in 2003.
The government's response -- and I saw the ambassador's response
there, which was as disingenuous as Bush's response, in a sense, because
he’s claiming that it’s just a civil war inside, the government has
nothing to do with it. It’s not true. The government's response was to
pick a proxy and arm it. And the government was, in a way, smart enough
to pick those who were the worst victims of the desertification and the
drought. It picked the poorest of the nomads from the north whose
livelihoods had been entirely destroyed and who had simply no survival
strategy at hand and gave them weapons. And these guys went down south,
and their object was not to kill the peasants in the south, but to drive
them off their land.
The government’s response was also to pick a second group, and
that second group are the nomads from Chad who have come into Darfur.
And to understand that, one has to look at the third dimension of the
conflict, which is that over the last twenty-five, thirty years there
has been a civil war going on in Chad. Chad, during the Cold War, was a
bone of contention, first and foremost between the US and France, and
both had their allies in the region. France allied with Libya. The US
allied with the military dictatorship in Sudan, with the Numeri
dictatorship in Sudan. And every oppositional movement in Chad had a
base in Darfur, and they armed themselves, organized themselves in
Darfur. So Darfur was awash with weapons for two decades, OK. And those
who ran away from the civil war in Chad came into Darfur. So the other
wing of those who were armed, whether by the government or whether by
this weaponry which was awash, were the Chad refugees in Darfur. So what
we call the Janjaweed are two groups. They are the Chad refugees in
Darfur, and they are the poorest of the northern camel -- the
pastoralists divide into two: the camel pastoralists and the cattle
pastoralists. And the camel pastoralists, because the camel is the only
game which will survive in the worst conditions where even cattle will
not survive, they are the poorest of the poor. So these are what are
called the Janjaweed.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play a clip for you from John
Prendergast. He is the senior adviser for the International Crisis
Group, leader of the Save Darfur Coalition, has argued that genocide is
occurring in Darfur, that the Sudanese government is trying to mask
what’s really happening.
JOHN PRENDERGAST: This policy of divide and conquer, which
has been in place since the early part of this decade, had as its
objective the creation of anarchy in Darfur. So when people take a
snapshot today and see Darfur and go, “My god, all these groups are
fighting against each other. It seems like it’s chaos,” it’s precisely
what the government intended.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: We need to keep in mind, and John Prendergast
needs to keep in mind, that the history of state-sponsored terrorism in
that part of Africa begins with the US providing a political umbrella to
South Africa to create a state-sponsored terrorist movement in
Mozambique: RENAMO. And it is after a full decade of that impunity that
others learn the experience, and Charles Taylor begins it in Liberia,
and the Sudanese government begins it in the south. But this is the
second thing, which builds on this history of political violence.
The third thing is that when the rebel movements begin in 2003 in
Darfur, the Khartoum government responds in the same way, which is it
looks at the scene, and it picks the weakest, the most vulnerable, the
ones that they can bring under their wing, it arms them and says, “Go
for it,” and they go for the land.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Mamdani, you quote the saying, “Out of
Iraq, into Darfur.” What about intervention?
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, look, the question in Darfur is really,
how do we stop the fighting, because if we want to stop the killing of
civilians, we have to stop the fighting. We have -- and the only way to
stop the fighting is a political resolution. In 2005, African Union
troops came into Darfur. I interviewed the Ghanaian general who was
deputy to Dallaire in Rwanda and who is the chief of the UN nucleus
force in Darfur. And he said to me that the African Union troops were
spectacularly successful in 2005. The killing came down dramatically.
And then, he said, two things happened. Both happened around the
question of finances, because African countries can provide troops but
they don’t have finances to provide salaries or logistics. So the first
shift was around salaries. The salaries of African troops were being
paid by the European Union, which paid them from an emergency fund, and
it shifted the payment to quarterly payments, so they would make payment
every three months, and they would only make the next three-month
payment if the paperwork was done properly, if there was accountability.
So, as I speak now, African Union troops have not been paid for four
months, because the EU says there hasn’t been proper accountability.
Second is about logistics. The troops have to work with planes,
and the planes provided are not military planes. They are planes flown
by civilian pilots. And civilian pilots have the right to refuse to fly
in areas which they consider dangerous. Now, of course, all these areas
are dangerous. So you’re operating with logistics that you don’t
control. Civilian pilots will not. The Ghanaian general said to me -- I
asked him, I said, “Why do you think these changes happened?” He said,
“I don’t know. But the only thing I can think is that the reason would
only be political.” I had the same response when I heard President
Bush’s speech.
AMY GOODMAN: Meaning to make the African Union troops ineffective.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Ineffective, exactly, because --
AMY GOODMAN: Incapacitate them.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: -- the contention has been over who has
political control over the troops in Darfur. OK. The African Union
troops are under the political control of African Union. And there is a
concerted attempt being made to shift the political control of any
intervention force inside Darfur from inside Africa to outside Africa.
The second thing is that the African Union is convinced that they cannot
go in and fight. They can only go in with the agreement of both sides,
so they can only intervene consensually. And that is crucial and
important, because if they go in with the two sides not agreeing, the
fighting will simply increase and the slaughter of civilians will increase.
President Bush's speech yesterday -- the response of the UN, the
UN Secretary General, was, “Look, we’re just arriving at an agreement.
We’ve been working for the last four, five months, and the Sudan
government is agreeing.” The South African response was the same. Why
sanctions now when we are about to arrive at an agreement? Any sane
thinking person would think that, intended or unintended, the
consequence of these imposition of sanctions is to torpedo that process
on the ground. And that process is the political process which is
absolutely vital to stopping the fighting.
AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned Congo. What about the comparison of
the conflicts and the attention given to each?
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, no two comparisons are exactly alike, of
course. We know that. But to the extent that numbers are being
highlighted, the numbers are huge in Congo. The Congo estimates are four
million-plus over several years. The Darfur estimates go from 200,000 to
400,000. So why no concern about Congo? Congo involves, again, multiple
causes, like Darfur. It’s a huge place. But in Kivu province, where I
have been, the conflict has been very Darfur-like, in the sense that
you’ve had proxies being fed from the outside, the Hema and the Lendu.
You have the recruitment of child soldiers. You have two states in the
region arming these proxies: Uganda and Rwanda. But both states are
allies of the US in the region, so there's nothing said about it.
The most recent example is Somalia. We can see that the civilian
suffering is going up dramatically in Somalia since the intervention,
Ethiopian intervention force. And we know that the Ethiopian
intervention force had at least the blessings of the US, if not more
than that -- I’m not privy to the information. And nothing is being said
about it. So one arrives back at the question: what is the politics
around it? And I’m struck by the innocence of those who are part of the
Save Darfur -- of the foot soldiers in the Save Darfur Coalition, not
the leadership, simply because this is not discussed.
Let me tell you, when I went to Sudan in Khartoum, I had
interviews with the UN humanitarian officer, the political officer,
etc., and I asked them, I said, “What assistance does the Save Darfur
Coalition give?” He said, “Nothing.” I said, “Nothing?” He said, “No.”
And I would like to know. The Save Darfur Coalition raises an enormous
amount of money in this country. Where does that money go? Does it go to
other organizations which are operative in Sudan, or does it go simply
to fund the advertising campaign?
AMY GOODMAN: To make people aware of what’s going on in Darfur.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: To make people aware of what is going on, but
people who then, out of awareness, give money not to fuel a commercial
campaign, but expecting that this money will go to do something about
the pain and suffering of those who are the victims in Darfur, so how
much of that money is going to actually -- how much of it translates
into food or medicine or shelter? And how much of it is being recycled?
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the UN process, if allowed to carry
forward, would be the answer right now?
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, the answer has to be a political process.
The African Union, if its hands are not tied -- if this money was
translated into salaries and logistics for the African Union force, it
would untie those hands. If the governments who claim to be speaking and
acting for the people of Darfur, if they actually directed the money
they intend to spend on intervention to paying salaries for the African
Union forces, to providing the logistics without these constraints, the
problem would be much closer to solving.
AMY GOODMAN: Columbia University Professor Mahmood Mamdani. His article,
“The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency” appeared in
the London Review of Books. He’s the author of many books, including
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror.
###
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list