Sudan Denies Darfur Conflict Is Genocide

[Moloch]

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Sudan denied the conflict in its western Darfur region that has killed 30,000 people was genocide, saying on Monday the term was being used by foreign politicians for their own ends.

"What is happening in Darfur is no genocide," Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said in an interview with Belgian daily De Standaard published on Monday.

Many countries have demanded Khartoum disarm Arab militias in the arid region accused of mounting a scorched earth policy against black Africans that the U.S. Congress has branded genocide. The United Nations (news - web sites) says 30,000 people have been killed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Link here (you need it for LBN)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26125556.htm

See also EU stepping up pressure on Sudan over Darfur

[Moloch]

8. Thanks for the link...

(Sorry I forgot to add it)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=8&u=/nm/20040726/ts_nm/sudan_genocide_dc

From Yahoo..

[aquart]

2. Just ordinary mass murder?

Well, that's a load off my mind.

Waiting for the outrage from the Arab world.

Still waiting.

[reorg]

4. no

How many people were directly killed in the often quoted raids of militias is -- at least to my knowledge, and I have searched for a while -- unclear.

The numbers of deaths often quoted in the media are estimates, e. g. on the basis of average daily deaths in refugee camps, due to hunger, disease and sickness.

Some non-western voices speak of a human tragedy -- even though one might argue that these tragic deaths are the fault of those who made the refugees flee, and thus in effect murdered by the roaming militias, or maybe insurgents.

A similar moral problem (or labelling problem, if you will) arises if one looks at the increased numbers of deaths in child births and deaths of children under five in Iraq during the Clinton years.

These deaths were clearly due to conditions resulting from the first US American war against Iraq and -- according to human rights groups and the responsible persons from the UN -- a direct result of the sanctions against Iraq.

All in all it is estimated that one million children died because of the sanctions. So one might speak of a horrible human tragedy indeed. Or even mass murder, since those who were responsible for this situation were well known. They knew it themselves. Albright said "it is worth it" when asked whether she realize that children die because of the sanctions. Was it genocide? I don't know. According to the official definition, it probably was, though.

[gottaB]

5. Albright said she misspoke--Darfur mortality

On multiple occaisions you have mentioned Albright's words as part of your argument that the genocide in Darfur is no big deal. But Albright doesn't stand by those words.

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.... As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own.

We could debate Albright's diplomacy till the cows come home. Let's not.

As for mortality in Darfur, to be more specific, estimates I have seen range from 10,000 to 135,000 (see this post, 350 a day could die in Sudan, UN says).

The number 50,000 is gaining currency in the media. If we can agree to trust the WHO figures, we should say that 50,000 have died of disease in the last six months, or, because 10 days have elapsed since that estimate was given, about 52,000 given the current mortality rate. That would be in addition to the number of people slain, which are estimated to be between 10,000 and 30,000.

Estimates of the numbers killed in Sudan's civil war (1983-2003) range from one half a million to two million. The latest estimates are closer to two million. Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century.

[reorg]

6. genocide

Helping you out here: In order to make my (two) unrelated mentions of Albright's name "multiple", I'll add the quote below. Now you can say that you can at least count to three, gottaB: one, two, "multiple":


>>ALBRIGHT'S SUPPORT OF THE SANCTIONS AND GENOCIDE CAN'T BE IGNORED

Protesters confronted Madeline Albright outside the induction ceremonies for the Women's Hall of Fame, in Seneca Falls New York. The protest was against the U.S./UN sanctions against Iraq. The demonstration was called by a coalition of groups including the International Action Center, Iraq Sanctions Challenge, Pax Christi, Syracuse and Rochester.

"Madeline Albright should be on trial in front of an international war crimes tribunal, not receiving an honor," said Sarah Sloan of the Iraq Sanctions Challenge. "I was just in Iraq in May and I saw the effects of the sanctions on women and children there. There are no medicines for anyone, no effective pre-natal care can be done. Women are so malnourished they can't breast feed their babies. There is no clean water for drinking because chlorine can't be imported in great enough quantities to do the job. Under the sanctions chlorine is considered duel-use, which means that it may have a military application. Meantime, 80% of the sickness we saw in the hospitals in Baghdad and Basra is due to drinking untreated and contaminated water."

Sloan continued, "The sanctions have a devastating effect on the lives of women in Iraq. They can't be forgotten. (...) Madeline Albright may try to blame Iraq for the suffering but the real criminals are those in the U.S. government who support and enforce the sanctions."

Demonstrators passed out leaflets to a supportive crowd and chanetd "Madeline Albright, you tell lies, Iraqi women and children die" and "Madeline Albright you can't hide, we charge you with genocide."

"We don't want to have organizations for women's rights co-opted by government officials who carry out the orders of big oil companies in search of super-profits," concluded Sloan. "The 150th anniversary of the founding of the women's movement for voting rights and social justice is a time for us to renew the battle for women and women's rights all over the world."<<

http://www.xs4all.nl/~peace/pubeng/inter/aa.html


So, what do you say? Can we agree that deliberately leaving innocent civilians in harm's way, large numbers of innocent children that died due to the sanctions against Iraq, can we agree that this constitutes a crime against humanity? Is it mass murder? Is it genocide? HRW documented the numbers. HRW showed a way out. Clinton and Albright didn't listen.

Would you agree that the ICC should be tasked with collecting evidence about Albright's participation in this genocide?

Some more help to get this clarified:


>>SANCTIONS , GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES

A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION ON 29 FEBRUARY 2000 BY SHUNA LENNON LLB (Hons)

(...)

KNOWLEDGE OF THE EFFECTS OF THE SANCTIONS

66. The fact that the UN is well aware of the effects of the blockade/sanctions regime is amply demonstrated by the contents of the reports referred to above. The UN Secretary General was obviously conscious of the true targets of the sanctions when he stated in 1995 (Secretary General, supplement to an agenda for peace, United Nations, a/fifty/sixty-S/1995/1):-

“Sanctions, as is generally recognised, are a blunt instrument. They raise the ethical question of whether suffering inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country is a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders whose behaviour is unlikely to be affected by the plight of their subjects.”

67. In the Panel Report para 45 it is stated that:

“Even if not all the suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be under going such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the security council and the effects of war.”

68. It is notable and significant that Denis Halliday, a former United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinater in Baghdad, resigned in October 1998 in protest over the effect of the sanctions on the civilian population. He now campaigns for the lifting of the sanctions. His replacement was Hans van Sponeck, who has in turn recently resigned after speaking out strongly against the sanctions.

69. There can be a high level of confidence that both Halliday and Van Sponeck sought to persuade the UN by reference to the facts to lift the blockade/sanctions regime before taking the extreme step of resigning. In early February 2000, Mr Van Sponeck gave an interview to CNN television wherein he stated:

“As a UN official, I should not be expected to be silent to that which I recognise as a true human tragedy which need to be ended ….. how long the civilian population which is totally innocent in all this, should be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?…. the very title that I hold as a humanitarian co-ordinator suggests that I can not be silent over that which we see here ourselves ….. guarantee the minimum of that a human being requires which is clearly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

70. James Rubin, the spokesman for the US Department of State, dismissed Mr Van Sponeck’s opinion as irrelevant. By contrast, the spokeswoman for France's foreign ministry said that: "His evaluation of the humanitarian situation in Iraq corresponds to reality. Without question, it reflects the views of all observers of the situation on the ground."

71. Jutta Burghardt, head of the UN’s World Food Programme in Iraq, has also just resigned her post in protest. She has stated that:

"It is a true humanitarian tragedy what is happening here and I believe any human being who looks at the facts and the impact of the sanctions on the population will not deny that is right,"

72. Seventy US Senators wrote to President Clinton in January 2000 demanding that the sanctions be lifted.

(...)

CRIMINAL INTENT REQUIRED

(...)

78. Even if it is arguable that the UN did not know as a matter of moral certainty from the inception of the sanctions that they would bring about civilian starvation and deaths, it certainly knew from the time when its own investigations revealed to it the extent to which the sanctions were causing civilian deaths. The earliest date on which that occurred is perhaps open to debate. It may be as late as 1995 (17). However, the fact that the blockade/sanctions regime inherently targets civilians must have been known to its architects from its inception and accordingly criminal liability attaches under the Geneva Protocol.<<

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm

[gottaB]

12. The ethics and legality of the Iraq sanctions merit discussion, but....

My naive position at the time was one of favoring targeted sanctions, because of concerns for widespread civilian suffering.

It's not a simple matter to assign blame to Albright, Clinton or the UN, because at the end of the day Saddam Hussein's government bore reponsibility for the distribution of resources in Iraq.

I think the sanction regime was nothing like genocide, and I think it's a terrible mistake not to recognize the difference, just as I think it's a terrible mistake to use a diplomat's redacted statement to pass judgement on a nation's foreign policy.

I suppose as long as genocides occur, there will be those who make it their business to distract and deny. Did the Armenian genocide really happen? How horrific was the holocaust, really? Was Saddam Huessein's campaign against the Marsh Arabs truly genocidal?

Genocide, as you well know, is not merely matter of human tragedy on a massive scale. It represents a particularily dehumanizing kind of crime, entailing the destruction of a group's identity and its community. So in the last analysis it isn't purely a matter of body counts, although the scale of some genocides does indeed serve as an index of the horror of the crime and the depravity of the criminals.

One can argue that the world faces instances of widespread human suffering that deserve to be prioritized over the misery of the Darfuris. I don't find that argument convincing, because I percieve the horror of the loss that has been inflicted, and because I see the crisis as a manmade catastrophe which is ultimately an indictment of the way we organize our world. It must not be allowed to continue.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gottaB]

11. self-deleted

[Moloch]

9. What's happening in Sudan is appalling...

If we had a real president and a real congress, something would be done to stop the genocide, mass rape and slavery going on there.

So far the only people I have heard from are Christian groups... Maybe if they had some oil over there to liberate...

[reorg]

10. Well, there is oil

proven resources of 500 million barrel, but one Michael Rogers of PFC Strategic Studies, who investegated this on behalf of the CSIS, found that there is a reasonable expectation of 3 billion barrel to be found until the end of the decade.

http://www.csis.org/africa/0208_SudanPFCSum.pdf

This is only about 3 percent of what the US now have in Iraq, or could have in Iran. But it seems to be possible to pump this oil at a rate of 600,000 b/d within a few years, which is more than a quarter of what is currently produced in Iraq (2,2 billion b/d if I am not mistaken).

There is, of course, the possibility of more oil to be found - and there are other resouces as well, especially in Darfur.

[jdj]

15. Wow, I didn't know the victims were mostly Christian. Bush's ass is in a

vise according to daily kos:

http://mbryan.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/3/2046/08863

"Bush needs results in Sudan, but he is just not willing to do what is required to make permanent change possible. Bush is under considerable pressure from his Christian base to do something about Sudan. Most of the victims of ethnic cleansing are Christians, and their killers are Muslim. Allowing this to continue unchecked is politically problematic in the clash of cultures environment upon which Bush has built his `War on Terror.' Bush also needs another diplomatic `triumph' such as the Libyan reproachment, before the election to prove he is capable of playing the statesman, as well as the warrior. If the Sudanese government doesn't take immediate action, a UN Security Council resolution will likely be passed. Draft versions of the resolution do not propose any immediate action against the Sudanese government, only a cognizance of the issue and the possibility of later action, such as travel restrictions and an arms embargo.
These measures are very marginal. They may produce some short-term compliance by the Sudanese government, or at least more circumspection as to the conditions under which Janjaweed militias carry out their pogrom, but the Sudan crisis is so deeply rooted and strongly motivated that such measures have no hope of permanently ending the violence. Bush and Powell will make some noise and pass a symbolic UNSC resolution, and press Khartoum to keep their affairs out of the news, but the reasons for the conflict and the interests which lay behind the genocide prevent the Administration from taking serious steps to end the conflict. International diplomatic pressure has been used before, and after a brief period of ameliorating the suffering of the southern Sudanese, Khartoum has always returned to endemic intercine warfare and ethnic cleansing.


Sudan is truly two nations. The north is Muslim and mostly Semitic, the south is Christian and traditional African religions and mostly black. The northern and southern regions were administered separately under the British, who recognized their essential differences. Unfortunately, the territories were joined together into one nation upon decolonization. Since independence in the 1950s, a low-intensity state of warfare has existed between north and south. An independence movement and rebellion took root in the South, exacerbated by the establishment of Sharia and an Islamic state in Khartoum in 1983. The Southern Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SSPLA) was formed and by the late 80s had taken control of nearly a third of the country, fighting the government forces to a virtual standstill. Though the rebels can no longer effectively contend with Khartoum's government forces and irregulars, now better armed and paid with oil revenues, aspirations of independence are still alive in the South. Fear of that persistent desire and its attendant loss of vital resources, especially oil, is the major reason for the ongoing ethnic violence.

Joined to the South's desire for independence, Khartoum's greed for oil becomes a motive for mass murder. The producing fields are in the south, and almost the entire south is covered by lease parcels which are being explored as likely sites of further oil reserves. The more reserves which are found, the worse the violence will become. Khartoum perceives a need to remove southern Sudanese from the regions surrounding this natural bounty, so that the wealth the oil produces cannot be denied to the government."

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. That blog is misleading

as the map it includes shows. Darfur is in the west of Sudan, not the south; the inhabitants are nearly all Muslim - both the 'Arabs' and the victims of the ethnic cleansing. There are some links between the rebels in Darfur and the SPLA in the Christian south. American Christian groups did put pressure on Bush to support the southern Christians in the longstanding civil war; a ceasefire was achieved there (which helps oil production), and it may have been fear of disturbing this that kept outsiders from complaining about the killings by the government-armed militia in Darfur earlier (and that may have emboldened the government further).

See this article from a man who's been writing on the area since the 1980s.

[reorg]

13. ok, forget about the secretary of state ...

but to your remark about my alleged arguing that the "genocide" in Darfur "is no big deal" - I am surprised that you would take to such smear tactics. Do you really get this impression from my messages?

You correctly cite the number of millions that have died in the last twenty years or so in Sudan, due to the civil war, not in Darfur, but in all. Every time I read the (in my local paper very rare and occasional) news throughout these last twenty years and more, I was wondering: Why on earth do they not report on this more? What the hell is going on there -- and nobody seems to care?

I have been in camps of Liberian refugees in Ghana and become friends with some people living there. Although they may have been living in luxury, compared with the refugees now in Chad, the conditions were squalid, bad enough to get desperate about it. Yes, there was water, but they had to buy it from trucks, and had no money. Yes, they had a place to stay, but were left to their own devices when it came to building a hut. Yes, there were organisations providing health care, but nevertheless they were begging on the street. Some of them had the wild hope to get into the small consignment of refugees the US allowed in. For the overwhelming majority a vain hope. You read never, ever, anything about these refugees in our papers. It is considered too much for the average consumer's breakfast reading.

And even now with respect to Darfur: what we do get to consume is limited reportage, and these are definitely one-sided, quick and ready-made stories. Seemingly made to justify something, at best to call on people to spend money, at worst to show how bad these Arabs are.

My fear is that such situations are being used for political purposes. That certain elements in Germany, where I live, are trying to use the plight of African refugees to justify the development of a European rapid deployment force and thus further militarise (not only) German politics.

We once had a reasonably well protection against offensive military action in our constitution. This is being corroded more and more, and so-called "humanitarian interventions" are being used to do this, it happened in Kosovo, it can happen again.

This is why I think we must be extremely careful in our judgement, if and how, military forces can or should be involved in the resolution of crises. And this is why we must be extremely sceptical of vague, little specified news ringing with all these horrible buzzwords like "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", "mass rape" and so on. These charges were trumped up in Yugoslavia, they can be trumped up anytime. We know from Iraq that the media are able and willing to do this.


ed. for content

[gratuitous]

3. It's not genocide, it's not mass murder

It's 30,000 unrelated acts of passion, self defense, or heat of the moment thingies. So Cheney off, world, and let us go back to killing each other in peace.

I wonder where all the Republicans who were so concerned about the Hutu/Tutsi massacre are? Anyone seen any Republicans "outraged" and demanding action from the president on this one?

[havocmom]

14. Believe there was a joint resolution which passed both houses

unanimously, declaring that the US recognizes that there is genocide occurring in Sudan.

Word of this comes to me from a young man my daughter works with. He has been working as an intern for AZ Congressman Kolbe this summer. He has been very busy talking to all who will listen and gathering support for his people in the Sudan besides his regular duties in Kolbe's office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Three US Congressmen got themselves arrested at daily lunchtime demonstrations at the Sudanese Embassy over the past couple of weeks.

http://bucharest.usembassy.gov/WF/400/04-07-22/eur415.htm

<snip> Congressman Joe Hoeffel (Democrat from Pennsylvania) blocked the entrance to the embassy with his wife, Francesca, and activist Dick Gregory as a crowd of protesters called on Sudan to act to prevent the slow death that has become the fate of the people of Darfur.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200407140642.html

<snip> Representative Charles Rangel (Democrat of New York) was arrested July 13 as he blocked the entrance to the Sudanese Embassy to protest the Khartoum government's support for militia groups that have killed between 15,000 and 30,000 people in Sudan's Darfur region while making a mockery of international efforts to stop what the lawmaker termed "genocide."

http://www.thehill.com/news/071504/rush.aspx

<snip< Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) will be arrested today {dateline of article: July 15, 2004} in front of the Sudanese Embassy as part of an ongoing protest against what members of the Congressional Black Caucus say is genocide in the country’s Darfur region, Rush’s spokesperson confirmed yesterday.

<snip> “He is angry at the fact that at the dawn of the 21st century we are still at a place in this world where innocent people are being killed and subjected to torture, rape and displacement based on skin color and religious belief,” Tasha Harris said. “He feels a responsibility to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves,” she added.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John Majok asked my daughter to pass along his thanks to the many, many people who worked to get this story out into public discussion and who took time to contact their reps and Sec of State Powell in D.C.

John walked out of the Sudan with other lads a few years ago. Stories of what he has witnessed boggle the mind. That he remains a loving, kind and happy soul is amazing. That he is determined to do all he can to save his people is not surprising. Through young eyes, he saw atrocities few of us will ever have to deal with. His father, a tribal leader was killed. He knows as each day passes, more are killed. Time equals lives ruined or lost and he knows this in a way few of us will ever understand.

He graduated from Pima Community College, Tucson in 2003. He is currently a student at the University of Arizona, studying public administration and health policy. His determination and dedication are inspiring. His enthusiasm and hopefulness is contagious.

He speaks of the Four Ds that saw him through his ordeal escaping from the militia killers and that keep him going in school, work and his effort to save his people: discipline, diligence, devotion, determination.

Discipline - keep at the task at hand
Diligence - do what is necessary every day for survival and to reach goals
Devotion - prayer and devotion to one another
Determination - refusing to fail

My sister, spellbound by this young man's story, asked him about the 'fifth D' - Direction. "How did you boys know which direction to go?"
She said John laughed from somewhere deep inside him and he answered brightly that direction was the easy one! Whatever direction the militia was coming from, the boys just went the other way.

She tells me of overhearing how John helped a co-worker put some annoyances at the office in perspective: She said, after listening patiently to the complaining and whining which far exceeded the true importance of the situation, He said: "*****, is it worse than seeing your best friend eaten by a lion?" Ah, perspective, what an expensive thing it is for some.

My daughter says when she is having a really bad time at work, she takes a look at John and how happily he tackles each task in his day. She says her burden is lightened and her heart is lifted.

a bit about John Majok and his work to save his people: http://aztecpress.pima.edu/050103/ahead.shtml
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/22017.php
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040526-111102-4678r.htm

John will be back at work next Monday. My daughter, my sister and the rest of the staff in the office will be happy to have him back. He will start the fall term at the U of A and keep up his breakneck pace to learn and acquire skills. He wants to be able to go home and help rebuild his nation. One could assume he will keep teaching Sunday School too!

I am sure there are many on the Hill in DC who will miss him. I am also sure the Hill will see him again.

So to all the evilDUers who wrote, called, rocked and rolled to draw attention (when the media was not reporting the story) to the terrible things going on in Sudan, I pass along John's deep appreciation.

To John and his companions on that long trek through the desert, may we say, thank you for the perspective.

Peace and strength
Peach and strength