Darfur: Seeking the truth - Special Series on Sudan

By Cedric Muhammad | Last updated: Aug 31, 2004 - 10:52:00 PM

Part I of Special FinalCall.com News Series on Sudan

Sudan Regional Map
BlackElectorate.com Interviews on Sudan: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
FinalCall.com E-Store: Minister Louis Farrakhan In Sudan

Rawandan troops get ready, Aug. 15, to board a transport plane at Kigali International Airport that took them to Sudan's troubled western region of Darfur.

(FinalCall.com) - The United Nations has called Darfur the home of the worst humanitarian disaster in the world and the publicized statistics regarding events within the past 18 months in this western region of the Sudan are horrific.

Amnesty International has estimated that 30,000 people have been killed, 130,000 have been forced to live as refugees in neighboring Chad, and over one million have been displaced inside of Sudan, with 2.2 million affected by violence.

News coverage of the unfolding situation is almost uniformly described as an ethnic cleansing campaign by light-skinned Arab militias ruthlessly killing dark-skinned African civilians.

The United Nations estimates that up to 50,000 people have been killed in Darfur and more than a million have fled their homes, 200,000 seeking refuge in neighboring Chad. Pictured here August 1, Sudanese refugees at one refugee camp.

But, in light of the complex ethnic and economic history of the region, can such descriptions adequately describe the situation?

Some who describe the situation as genocide, while acknowledging racial and ethnic complexities, believe that the accuracy regarding ethnicity should take a back seat to the recognition of human suffering.

In an interview with BlackElectorate.com, activist Joe Madison, president of The Sudan Campaign, said, “It really doesn’t make any difference what the ethnicity of the individuals are. The bottom line is that they are all God’s children. The bottom line is that they are human beings. The bottom line is that they are citizens of Sudan and do not and should not be treated like this.”

On the other hand, journalist Sam Dealey, a former editorial page writer for the Asian Wall St. Journal, asserts that how the conflict is characterized is relevant to how the problem is solved. In an op-ed appearing in the August 8 edition of the New York Times, he wrote, in part, about the lack of a factual connection between media reports and the reality on the ground in Darfur, which exposed “three myths of one of the worst humanitarian crises—that the Janjaweed are the sole source of trouble and are acting only as proxies for Khartoum; that the conflict pits light-skinned Arabs against black Africans; and that the Sudanese government can immediately end the war whenever it wishes. Until the international community puts aside these simplifications, no sustainable solution can emerge.”

Beyond labels
Mr. Dealey also wrote of his time spent with a Janjaweed militia leader, Musa Khaber. The Janjaweed are commonly reported to be light-skinned Arabs who are responsible for killing Blacks.

But Mr. Dealey writes, “Mr. Khaber’s group is made up of Arab and African tribesman. A dark-skinned Berti African, Mr. Khaber describes himself as an Arab.” Interestingly, the Berti people are generally classified by many historians and ethnographers as an Indigenous Black African group.

Northwestern University and University of Bergen Professor Sean O’Fahey, an expert in Islamic Sudan and Darfur, contends that the Arab vs. Black African characterization of Darfur “is both very recent and very misleading. For example, the use of the term “Zurqa,” (Blacks), to distinguish non-Arab peoples from Arabs has a long history in the region, but only recently has it acquired racial and racist overtones.”

The pan-African organization Justice Africa has also expressed its concerns regarding the racial characterization of the conflict. In a July 30 special report, “Prospects For Peace In Sudan,” it wrote: “The press coverage and its dichotomization of ‘Arabs’ and ‘Africans’ continues to have the unfortunate side effect of further entrenching the racial component to the war in Darfur.

“As journalists are finding out when they visit Darfur, it is rarely possible to tell ‘Arab’ from ‘African’ by skin color. Most Darfur Arabs are black, indigenous and African. They are ‘Arab’ in the old sense of being Bedouin, rather than hailing from the Arab homelands of the Nile Valley or Fertile Crescent, and their Arabism is a relatively recent political construct.”

Ethnic and ecologic roots of tension
Darfur is the 114,000 sq. mile westernmost province of Sudan, about the size of the country of France. With 6.5 million people, the area is a sparsely populated land marked by large portions of desert. The name “Darfur” has been translated by some as “homeland of the Fur people,” referring to the most populous group in Darfur, who have arguably been the most wealthy in terms of natural resources.

Darfur, today, is the home of some 80 tribes and ethnic groups divided largely between nomadic grazers and sedentary farmers. Some historians, like S. Harir and A.M. Ahmed, suggest that the population of Darfur can also be divided into four groups: the Baggara (cattle nomads); the Aballa (camel nomads); the Zurga (the local name for non-Arab peasants, derived from the Arabic word for Black); and the urban dwellers.

All of the people of Darfur are Muslim. Professor O’Fahey believes that Darfur can be divided into three ethnic zones. Because Darfur is Sudan’s least chartered area, the region has never been ethnically homogeneous. Arab and non-Arab, mainly camel nomads, or the Aballa, live in the north; non-Arab sedentary farmers, including the Fur and Masalit people, inhabit the central zone; and a southern area is made up of Arabic-speaking cattle nomads, the Baggara.

The region has been troubled by ecological degradation and scarcity, marked by long droughts and famine, which have aggravated tensions and strained relations between various groups.

The Fur, Zaghawa nomads, Masalit, Berti and Meidob ethnic groups exclusively established The Darfur Development Front (DDF) in the mid 1960s for the purpose of protecting and lobbying the interests of the Indigenous Darfurians. The economic pressure on these ethnic groups and their political lobbying intensified with a lengthy drought in 1967 in northern Darfur, which continued almost without interruption through the 1980s. Prolonged droughts accelerated the desertification of northern and central Darfur, and caused a famine and unprecedented displacement as camel nomads were forced to move south, placing pressure on grazing and water resources.

These tensions intensified conflict along ethnic and tribal lines, due to an increase in the proliferation of guns and the breakdown of kinship systems and the age-old methods of conflict resolution within tribes. This problem was compounded by efforts in the 1980s by both the Sudanese government and the leading opposition group in southern Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), to arm Darfurian tribes and ethnic groups, making the region another front for the broader civil war gripping the country.

Political strife and stereotypes
The emergence of the Arab Congregation in the 1980s, a political alliance of pastoralist nomadic tribes and urban merchants and government officials, further increased tensions. The congregation, like the DDF, was a political lobby seeking to influence the central government and gain the support of national political parties.

Last year, as the Sudanese government and the SPLA reached the final stages of a peace agreement ending over 20 years of civil war, two new armed political movements dramatically arose—the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)—representing themselves as advocates for the marginalized people of Darfur.

Mainstream media outlets identify both groups as deriving their membership from “Black African” Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit tribes, while the Sudanese government says the SLA is almost exclusively derived from a single group, the Zaghawa; and the JEM, it claims is closely aligned with “extremist Islamic political leaders hostile to the present Sudanese government.”

In response to the rise of the JEM and SLA, it is widely reported that the Sudanese government, having little interest in directly fighting these groups, supported a counterinsurgency movement by using militias from nomadic tribes, now commonly referred to as the Janjaweed, to put down the rebellion.

A direct result of the rise of the JEM and SLA and the fighting that ensued has been the stalling of the overall Sudanese peace process between the government in Khartoum and the SPLA.

Political timetables
The Security Council has given the Sudanese government a 30-day timetable, which ends Aug. 29, to show progress in disarming the Janjaweed militias. Farhan Haq in the office of the spokesman of the UN Secretary-General, when asked about the role that might be played by the African Union in disarming these militias, said, “The Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan has sent a UN team to the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia to advise on an expanded deployment of African Union troops in Darfur. There are already 300 troops there and there are discussions around the idea of bolstering that number up to several thousand.”

It is not clear exactly what the consequences would be if the United Nations deems that the Sudanese government is not in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1556. But the United States’ UN Ambassador John Danforth has indicated within UN circles that an intensification of sanctions on Sudan is one option. But there is no clear consensus visible on the matter among the Security Council members who would be responsible for making the final decision.

There are, however, rumblings that some countries may not wait on the United Nations Security Council to act before they intervene in Darfur. The Guardian newspaper in London has reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked his foreign office and advisers to draw up plans for possible military intervention in Sudan. Reportedly, the plans would include British logistical support for the African Union, the delivery of humanitarian services and the protection of refugee camps from armed militias. A British government official is quoted in a July 22 Guardian article as saying, “The prime minister has asked us to look at all options that will save lives and not to rule out the military services.”

There are projections that the U.S. may also be tempted to intervene. The Bush administration has been consistent in its condemnations of events in the Sudan. In an April 7 presidential statement issued by the White House, President George Bush said, “New fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan has opened a new chapter of tragedy in Sudan’s troubled history. The Sudanese government must immediately stop local militias from committing atrocities against the local population and must provide unrestricted access to humanitarian aid agencies. I condemn these atrocities, which are displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and I have expressed my views directly to President Bashir of Sudan.”

As has been the case for most of this year, critics don’t believe the President’s labeling of “atrocities” in Darfur goes nearly far enough. One of those critics is his major opponent in the general election in November.

In his address before the NAACP convention in July, Senator John Kerry said, “This administration must stop equivocating. These government sponsored atrocities should be called by their rightful name—genocide.” The Democratic presidential candidate also called for sanctions and international humanitarian intervention.

Sudanese officials have expressed concern over the nature of the public characterization of what is happening in Darfur and, in particular, comments from U.S. political leaders. Reportedly, Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Othman Ismail, in a July interview with the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, criticized Pres. Bush of trying to exploit the crisis in Darfur to win Black votes.

“The only explanation to this escalation is that it has become part of the American election campaign to attract Black voters,” he said.

Comments by both Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry are leading to growing concern among members of the Sudanese leadership that the issue of Darfur will become an issue in the final months of the 2004 presidential campaign. Sudanese officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed concerns to The Final Call in response to the possible scenario that a back-and-forth competition for Black voters could lead to an increasingly aggressive military-oriented posture toward the Sudan by both political parties.

“I can see President Bush might feel the need to take bold steps in regards to Darfur in order to answer the position of candidate John Kerry, and satisfy Black Americans,” expressed one official.

International law and humanitarian calls
A diverse coalition of activists, organizations and institutions have been hurling charges of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Sudanese government for allegedly using the Janjaweed, an Arab tribal militia group, to systematically kill Black Darfurians.

Both the House of Representatives and Senate have officially declared what is taking place as “genocide.” Human Rights Watch has accused the Sudanese government of directing a militia of “Arab-ethnic origin” known as the Janjaweed to attack “Black African” civilians. A chorus of activists and media outlets has also alleged that the Sudanese government is interfering with the delivery of international humanitarian aid.

In a release, Mr. Madison, who is on a hunger strike to protest the situation, said, “What is happening in Darfur is nothing short of criminal, the acts of violence and destruction are not random or a result of war. Simply put, they are byproducts of ethnic cleansing and a scorched earth policy.”

Africa Action Executive Director Salih Booker says, “We believe strongly that the evidence is ample, both of the intent and the physical evidence that what is taking place (in Darfur) is genocide.”

And, for the first time in its history, the Holocaust Museum declared a “genocide emergency” in regards to Darfur. In an official statement, chair of the museum’s Committee on Conscience, Tom Bernstein said, “We began warning about the threat of genocide in Darfur at the beginning of this year. That threat is now becoming reality.”

At the exact same time these statements have been made, the African Union, European Commission and Arab League have all stated that they do not believe that what is happening is a clear case of genocide. The United Nations itself has fallen short of labeling Darfur a site of genocide. During a June press conference, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the situation “was bordering on ethnic cleansing.”

And there has been little clarity on the controversial subject coming from the U.S. Capitol. The government says it is in the process of investigating the matter. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an August 5 op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, wrote: “A U.S. team is on the ground in Chad interviewing Sudanese refugees from Darfur in order to gather information that will help our government make a determination as to whether the violence and atrocities in Darfur constitute genocide under the International Convention for the Prevention of Genocide.”

It is widely accepted that the international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. Article II describes five types of violence that constitute genocide.

It reads: “In the present Con-vention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: [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 emphasis on the label of genocide is strategic in nature, as well as humanitarian. Some organizations are openly campaigning for the United Nations to officially describe the situation as genocide, with the knowledge that such a step would trigger mandatory political, humanitarian and military action from UN members.

The organization Africa Action has launched a petition drive specifically demanding that the U.S. and UN make the official declaration of genocide. In an official talking point, the group openly argues the label’s importance, stating, “As parties to the Genocide Convention, all permanent members of the UN Security Council—including the U.S.—and more than 130 countries worldwide, are bound to prevent, stop and punish genocide.”

A weak link
Most of the activists, government officials and institutions alleging genocide do so primarily on the basis of evidence showing a link between the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed; and the testimony of victims and individuals in refugee camps in Chad, or those within Sudan classified as internally displaced peoples (IDPs).

The two most influential Western organizations compiling such evidence and testimonies are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Generally speaking, the findings of both organizations are being weaved together to support a case that the government of Sudan is supporting rebel groups of Arab identification who are exclusively targeting Black Africans in Darfur for murder and abuse. Human Rights Watch claims it has documentation of “hand in glove” collaboration between the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed in carrying out attacks on innocent civilians. Amnesty International claims it has testimony of victims of rape and violence at the hands of the Janjaweed.

Interestingly, neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch officially advocates the characterization of the situation in Darfur as “genocide.” A high-level individual inside of one of these organizations told this writer that they believe the hesitancy to officially advocate the use of the word “genocide” stems from a fear that secure access to conduct research within the countries may be denied.

It has been argued that this concern persuaded the UN High Commission on Human Rights in April of this year to allegedly suppress a report critical of human rights abuses along the Chad-Sudan border. UN spokesperson Jose Luis Diaz, in an April 29 letter to the Washington Post in response to such charges, indicated factors other than the publication of the truth that impact the issue of reports.

“Our presence in Darfur may provide a measure of protection to people at risk, protection that would have been unavailable if we had issued the report and provided a rationale for the denial of access,” he wrote.

Another problem with the allegations of a genocidal link between the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed lies in the evidence provided by the primary authority of such a relationship, Human Rights Watch. Although in its July 9, 2004 report, “Darfur Documents Confirm Government Policy of Militia Support,” the group claims to have written documentation of official support between the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed, in reality these claims only assert a direct relationship between the Janjaweed and the local Darfur civilian administration. They do not offer any written documentation of collaboration between the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government in Khartoum.

Also, according to Mr. Dealey, there are members of the Janjaweed on record as denying any alliance with the Sudanese government, belying the assumptions of many, including the United Nations and the United States. Mr. Khaber denies that his Janjaweed are aligned with anyone.

“We are not with the government, we are not with the rebels,” he told Mr. Dealey. “We are in hell. We want what is due.” For 25 years, he said, he and his group have waged war against a succession of regimes that failed to adequately care for his people.

One-sided charges in a larger conflict
A final concern regarding the evidence and testimony used to support charges of genocide is that they are often one-sided in nature. Amnesty International admits in one of its most influential reports, “Darfur: Rape as a weapon of war: sexual violence and its consequences,” that some of the exact allegations against the Janjaweed were brought to their attention regarding the conduct of the rebel groups, the SLA and JEM, but that the human rights fact-finding and advocacy organization was not able to investigate them fully.

“There have been reports of abuses and torture, including rape, by members of the SLA and JEM, but due to the restrictions on access to the area, including those imposed by lack of security, it is difficult to collect more evidence on the human rights abuses reportedly committed by insurgents,” according to the report.

Amnesty International’s Africa Director Adotei Akwei acknowledges the shortcomings of his organization’s coverage of atrocities on both sides of the conflict, telling The Final Call, “Our organization has a certain organizational hang-up about going into countries officially, we don’t sneak across borders. But we will have to go back and verify these things and corroborate the testimony that we are getting from the refugee camps (about attacks by rebel groups).”

Mr. Akwei readily admits that there is evidence to justify greater attention paid to the deeds of those opposing the Sudanese government, as it relates to their respect for humanitarian assistance.

“Those rebel groups are also not complying in terms of humanitarian law, because they have attacked humanitarian convoys, they have seized stuff. They have disrupted food supplies going in, and we certainly don’t know what is going on in their camps. So, the focus on the Janjaweed and the army and Khartoum is all legitimate, but that does not mean that there is not a larger problem.”

(This is the first part in a three-part series examining the situation in Darfur.)

The Final Call