Eric Reeves
June 23, 2004
At least efforts at self-exculpation for the Rwandan genocide waited until the terrible events were completed. In Darfur—“Rwanda in slow-motion,” in the all-too apt phrase of International Crisis Group’s John Prendergast—the unseemly efforts of avoiding blame for the impending deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have already begun. Perhaps this is understandable in the context of self-interest: failures of responsibility and leadership already abound, even as the real season of death has barely begun. But this disgraceful diversion of energies from the essential humanitarian tasks at hand, and the essential militarily support for such tasks, says all too much about why Darfur continues its relentless slide into deeper catastrophe.
Of course, while Darfur may be Rwanda in “slow motion,” it is also an accelerated version of what has been transpiring in southern Sudan over the past two decades. Here more than 2 million have already died, and more than 4.5 million have been displaced internally or into neighboring countries. In the south, too, we have seen the deliberate destruction of African tribal groups (especially in the Nuba Mountains and more recently in the vast oil regions of Upper Nile). Indeed, precisely because the African populations of Darfur are entirely Muslim, and the Muslim population of southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, and Southern Blue Nile is relatively small, it is clear that being African is the salient fact in Khartoum’s determination of those human populations that will be targeted.
Moreover, the strategies of human destruction are remarkably similar: the massive killing or starving of civilians as a means of fighting a counter-insurgency war; the use of paramilitary and militia forces for much of the civilian destruction; the use of Antonov bombers to drop huge loads of anti-personnel bombs on civilian and humanitarian targets; the manipulation of food and humanitarian aid as a weapon of war; destruction or poisoning of water sources; de facto concentration camps (called “peace camps”), populated by desperately hungry displaced persons who become utterly food-dependent on Khartoum’s military forces; “scorched-earth” tactics (again, especially in the oil regions; see the definitive “Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights,” Human Rights Watch, November 2003 www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/).
The full effects of Khartoum’s genocidal assault on the African tribal groups of Darfur, so long clearly in prospect, are beginning in earnest. Having for many month relentlessly and “deliberately inflicted on the [African tribal groups of Darfur] conditions of life calculated to bring about [their] physical destruction in whole or in part” (UN Genocide Convention), Khartoum now need only watch as the genocide accomplishes itself. The obstruction of humanitarian access continues, but is hardly necessary given the extreme insecurity throughout the vast rural areas, created and sustained by Khartoum’s Janjaweed militia allies. (See an extremely compelling new report on “indicators of genocide,” based on a recent assessment mission to the Chad/Darfur border region, from Physicians for Human Rights at: http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/; discussed below.)
The rains have begun in earnest, with torrential downpours flattening many makeshift shelters (BBC, June 23, 2004) and severing many more road corridors; humanitarian capacity and access is woefully inadequate, and fewer than 50% of those in need are receiving assistance (and this percentage is trending lower); the more than 1.3 million people who have been driven from their homes, and the 2.2 million people described by the UN, the US, and the European Union as “war-affected” are dying at a rate of over 5,000 per week according to data from the US Agency for International Development (see: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/cmr_darfur.pdf); global acute malnutrition and severe acute malnutrition rates are soaring according to Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres and other humanitarian organizations; deaths from water-borne diseases are now rapidly accelerating, and malaria will soon take a huge toll as well; the World Health Organization yesterday (June 22, 2004) issued an alarming report on an outbreak of polio in western and central Africa that could see a huge number of victims this fall in Darfur (the polio “high season”) without an increasingly unlikely “massive immunization response”; some of the camps with humanitarian access are already experiencing “catastrophic mortality rates,” and the concentration camps without international access are in effect extermination sites.
These are the instruments of Khartoum’s war by genocide.
The racial animus in this vast maelstrom of human destruction remains unambiguously clear. Khartoum continues to stoke racial and ethnic hatred among the Janjaweed militia, and reports of the consequences continue to stream in. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, recently back from his second assessment trip to the Darfur/Chad border, has been emphatic in his description of Darfur as the site of genocide. He reports today on the entirely characteristic and endlessly replicated horror suffered by men, children, and women in Darfur:
“Hatum Atraman Bashir, a 35-year-old woman who is pregnant with the baby of one of the 20 Janjaweed raiders who murdered her husband and then gang-raped her. Ms. Bashir said that when the Janjaweed attacked her village, Kornei, she fled with her seven children. But when she and a few other mothers crept out to find food, the Janjaweed captured them and tied them on the ground, spread-eagled, then gang-raped them.
“‘They said, “You are black women, and you are our slaves,” and they also said other bad things that I cannot repeat,’ she said, crying softly. ‘One of the women cried, and they killed her. Then they told me, “If you cry, we will kill you, too.”‘ Other women from Kornei confirm her story and say that another woman who was gang-raped at that time had her ears partly cut off as an added humiliation.” (New York Times, June 23, 2004)
This is the context in which Kofi Annan is devoting energies to blaming UN member nations for a catastrophe that will now, inevitably, claim hundreds of thousands of lives—perhaps as many as 1 million. Such efforts are all the more disgraceful because of his strong words on the grim tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide (marked on April 7, 2004—over two and a half months ago). At the time, Annan explicitly invoked Darfur in the ominous context of the Rwandan genocide, which occurred while Annan was head of UN peacekeeping. For Darfur, he promised a response that could include the use of military force if needed. Now, having reneged on this clear promise of all necessary action, Annan is seeking to avoid blame rather than articulating plans for the necessary humanitarian intervention. Perhaps by way of further self-exculpation, he claims that he has seen nothing that justifies a finding of either genocide or “ethnic cleansing.”
This claim is made despite the repeated and emphatic finding of “ethnic cleansing” by UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland, by former UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, by the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development, by Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, and many more (see analysis of UN, US, human rights, and other findings of genocide and “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur by this writer; June 18, 2004, available upon request).
**************************
Despite Annan’s profession of ignorance, the overwhelming evidence of genocide in Darfur has compelled more and more knowledgeable observers to declare this reality publicly and to make increasingly forceful comparison to the Rwandan genocide. The highly authoritative Africa Confidential explicitly referred to “continued genocide in Darfur” (Africa Confidential, June 11, 2004; Volume 45, Number 1). In speaking on June 18, 2004 to the question of whether Khartoum’s conduct of war in Darfur constitutes genocide, the also highly authoritative researchers of Justice Africa declared unambiguously, explicitly referencing the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, “there is no doubt that the answer is yes” (“Sudan: Justice Africa Analysis,” http://allafrica.com/stories/200406180714.html).
Representing the International Crisis Group in testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (June 15, 2004), John Prendergast spoke of unfolding “evidence of conditions of genocide,” and then declared that “in the International Crisis Group’s judgment, the situation in Darfur more than satisfies the Genocide Convention’s conditions for multilateral preventive action” (testimony at: http://allafrica.com/stories/200406160578.html).
The distinguished Physicians for Human Rights, which recently completed an assessment mission along the Chad/Darfur border, today issued a superbly authoritative and well-documented report, analyzing in detail “indicators of genocide” in Darfur and calling for humanitarian intervention:
“Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) has gathered compelling information that a genocidal process is unfolding in Darfur, Sudan. The terms of the Genocide Convention commit parties to the Convention to act to prevent when there are indicators that there is intent to destroy, physically or mentally, in whole or in part, a group on the basis of ethnicity, language, religion, or race [PHR here references the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide].”
“In the case of Darfur, PHR has concluded that there is ample indication that an organized campaign on the part of the Government of Sudan is underway, targeting several million non-Arab Darfurian inhabitants for removal from this region of the country, either by death (most commonly through immediate violence or slow starvation) or forced migration. Government of Sudan forces, allied with the Janjaweed militia, have caused intense disruption and destruction of non-Arab Darfurian land holdings, communities, families, and all means of livelihood and necessities. By destroying, stealing, or preventing access to food, water, and medicine, the Government of Sudan and Janjaweed are creating conditions destined to destroy the non-Arab Darfurians.”
(“Physicians for Human Rights Calls for Intervention to Save Lives in Sudan: Field Team Compiles Indicators of Genocide,” June 23, 2004; at http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/)
The introductory summary concludes with these extraordinary words:
“Having reviewed PHR’s findings, Justice Richard Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and a PHR board member said, ‘After all that we know and have learned from the last decade’s genocides and mass atrocities, it is unconscionable for the world to witness these crimes and fail to take steps to protect and save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. We owe it to the victims of Darfur and potential victims to do everything we can to prevent and account for what the PHR report establishes is genocide and reverse the intolerable acts of forcing entire populations from their land, destroying their livelihood and making it virtually impossible to return.'”
(“Physicians for Human Rights Calls for Intervention to Save Lives in Sudan: Field Team Compiles Indicators of Genocide,” June 23, 2004; at http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/)
Susan Rice (Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Clinton administration) and Gayle Smith (senior Africa advisor at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration), humbled by the memory of Rwanda, declared in a Washington Post op/ed of May 30, 2004:
“[Bush administrations efforts to bring peace between Khartoum and southern Sudan] will have been wasted if we allow the Sudanese government to continue committing crimes against humanity. Not only will the international community have blood on its hands for failure to halt another genocide, but we will have demonstrated to Khartoum that it can continue to act with impunity against its own people. In that case, any hard-won peace agreement will not be worth the paper it’s signed on.” (Washington Post, May 30, 2004)
Justice Africa (Washington) launched a petition drive on June 15, 2004, declaring:
“Africa Action today [June 15, 2004] states, ‘the term “genocide” not only captures the fundamental characteristics of the Khartoum government’s intent and actions in western Sudan, it also invokes clear international obligations.’ Africa Action notes that all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—including the US—are parties to the 1948 Convention on Genocide, and are bound to prevent and punish this crime under international law. Genocide is described as the commission of acts with ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.'”
[To sign the petition, visit Africa Action’s website: www.africaaction.org/]
*********************
Meanwhile, the Bush administration dithers in its own determination of whether realities in Darfur rise to the level of genocide, and even whether the evidence rises to a level obligating action to “prevent genocide” under Article 1 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This is so despite overwhelming evidence from the ground, the very substantial results of aerial and satellite reconnaissance, and a huge refugee population from Darfur in Chad, with accounts that are terrifyingly similar.
At the same time, the John Kerry presidential campaign refuses to answer the difficult political questions about humanitarian intervention, and thus refuses to demonstrate what kind of leadership he would show in a humanitarian crisis if elected President.
Despite all this, there are some signs of moral and political resolve in Washington. Tragically, this is unlikely to translate into timely action, as the countries of the European Union and Canada refuse to show any comparable resolve.
A press conference was held today (June 23, 2004) by Africa Action, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington to urge the Bush administration to take more action in halting genocide in Darfur. At 5pm today, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus will sign the Africa Action petition, calling on the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council to uphold their obligations under the Genocide Convention.
As early as tomorrow, a bipartisan Congressional resolution will be introduced, declaring that the atrocities of Darfur must be called genocide; urging the Bush administration to call the atrocities being committed in Darfur “by their rightful name: genocide”; reminding the international community, including the United States government, of obligations under the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide; calling on the administration to do more to prevent genocide in Darfur, including (if necessary) mounting a humanitarian intervention without UN authorization; and demanding that the Bush administration target sanctions against the members of the Khartoum regime responsible for atrocities and genocide in Darfur.
Further, an extraordinary event will be held tomorrow in the Hall of Witness at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum: “Bearing Witness for Darfur: Can We Prevent Genocide in Sudan?” (10:30am, June 24, 2004, Washington, DC). The Committee on Conscience of the Holocaust Memorial Museum has urgently reiterated its “genocide warning” for Sudan, with particular emphasis on Darfur.
Two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Mike DeWine of Ohio, today co-authored an op/ed in the Washington Post that declared:
“Imagine that we could rerun the events that occurred in Rwanda 10 years ago. With the certain knowledge of horrific events to come, would the world’s great nations again stand idle as 800,000 human beings faced slaughter? If the recent expressions of grief and regret from world leaders are any indication, the answer is no—this time things would be very different. Yet, in 2004, just as in 1994, the international community is on the verge of making a tragic mistake. Mass human destruction is unfolding today in [Darfur,] Sudan, with the potential to bring a death toll even higher than that in Rwanda.” [ ]
“A survivor of the Rwandan genocide named Dancilla told her story to a British humanitarian group. She said: ‘If people forget what happened when the U.N. left us, they will not learn. It might then happen again — maybe to someone else.’
All Americans should realize one terrible fact: It is happening again.” (Washington Post, June 23, 2004)
But without leadership and urgency from senior members of the Bush administration, without an immediate move toward robust international action—foregoing UN authorization if necessary—genocide will “continue to happen…again.”
The imperative of humanitarian intervention could not be clearer, even as most of the world seems increasingly to have resolved upon the easy course of uttering sanctimonious words, and a perverse determination not to make any consequential finding concerning genocide in Darfur. Let us be clear, then, on this most critical issue; for such determination could not have greater consequence or urgency. A finding of genocide, along with international acceptance of obligations under the Genocide Convention, is likely all that offers Darfur even a glimmer of hope within the darkness of unfathomable destruction and suffering.
This is the simple truth. It shields no one from blame.
Eric Reeves
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063
413-585-3326
ereeves@smith.edu