Nicholas Kristof (The New York Times): The Secret Genocide Archive

From The New York Times
Dated Wednesday February 23

GRAPHIC WARNING

The Secret Genocide Archive
By Nicholas Kristof

Photos don't normally appear on this page. But it's time for all of us to look squarely at the victims of our indifference.

These are just four photos in a secret archive of thousands of photos and reports that document the genocide under way in Darfur. The materials were gathered by African Union monitors, who are just about the only people able to travel widely in that part of Sudan.

This African Union archive is classified, but it was shared with me by someone who believes that Americans will be stirred if they can see the consequences of their complacency.

The photo at the upper left was taken in the village of Hamada on Jan. 15, right after a Sudanese government-backed militia, the janjaweed, attacked it and killed 107 people. One of them was this little boy. I'm not showing the photo of his older brother, about 5 years old, who lay beside him because the brother had been beaten so badly that nothing was left of his face. And alongside the two boys was the corpse of their mother.

Read more.

It is a situation which cries out for outside intervention, of the most forcible nature....

Here is the problem: its clear to me that serious war crimes, probably genocide, are being comitted in Sudan. But in the wake of Iraq/Afganistan, who exactly do we get to clean this up who can be remotely trusted to do a semi-reasonable job (note that my standards are low, as I agree the sitation is dire)? The US calls it genocide yet is patently unwilling to take troops away from Iraq to Sudan, and even if it did, could such an action by the liberators of Fallujah be supported? The UN doesn't want to hear the word genocide, and I suspect some part of that has to do with yet another Muslim government being accussed before the world of atrocities. So what kind of action should one call for? A joint EU force perhaps - to test this new European army being assembled - but Europe is going to be loathe to step into this conflict. And once the troops are on the ground, and have presumably stopped the atrocities, who governs?

I share your sentiments, but the reality is more problematic IMO...

The North Vietnamese deserved a loud cheer for dislodging the Khymer Rouge, even though humanitarian action was no part of their purpose, and their conduct was in many ways very poor.

That U.S. forces are unavailable for this is just one of my many quarrels with the adventure in Iraq currently underway. That was an illegitimate use of military force; this would be a legitimate one.

A European force, even an Egyptian one, would suit me just fine, and who rules afterwards, so long as they do not rule by massacre, does not concern me much. Sudan really ought to be partitioned; as is so often the case in areas often conquered and predated upon, it is not really a unitary nation, but an amalgam of disparate peoples held together by force from a central authority.

however well intentioned - but in this matter, I agree something needs to be done. An Egyptian force, if Egypt is willing, would be infinitely preferable to Europe or the US IMO, and of course the AU assembling a force would be best of all - but I doubt they will do it. If they were willing to act, it would not only remove most problems of legitimacy that any post-intervention settlement will have, but would explode the myth-de-jour in Europe of Africans unable to take care of their own affairs (well its an old myth really).

Once the Sage wrote: "Weapons are implements of fear. They are not the tools of a wise man. He uses them only when he has no other choice."

1. The US, apart from being tied up in Iraq, has no credibility and won't at least until Bush is out of power.

2. The Europeans already have had their go at Africa, and we shouldn't blame the Africans if they want no more of that.

3. The AU sounds good, but what about The Congo? The AU may have its hands full.

4. Arab states are nervous about you-know-who and may not want to commit troops to a peace keeping mission in Sudan.

...who said we shouldn't fire Rumsfeld over Abu Ghraib?

I suspect Kristoff was given access to these items because he was perceived to be one of the most influential and respected journalists who have covered the story. He probably has good people skills too. Even so, he has detractors, as does the New York Times, as does the United States. The crisis in Darfur is not an issue for any one nation or political faction. The whole world needs to know what the AU monitors know.

Dear Senator X,
I am writing you with great concern over the genocide going on in Sudan. Yes, it is genocide, and I cannot live with myself if I do nothing while this goes on. While the world bickers over what term we should be using hundreds of thousands of people are being brutally raped and murdered. While we argue over where the courts should try these criminals, more lives are unnecessarily lost. No matter what anyone wants to call it right now, I can assure you that history will look back at these events and call it genocide. You have a the opportunity with your voice to help Sudan become a place where history will judge the US as doing the right thing rather than another US regret (like Rwanda). Please look at the pictures of this suffering. Please imagine that one of these children were your own. I know the US is not alone in its lack of action in Sudan, but if no one else will help, we must set the example of answering an inarguable cry for help. This is the only right thing to do.
Thank you,
Julia


(I put my letters in the mail rather than emailing them)

snipped.....
So what can stop this genocide? At one level the answer is technical: sanctions against Sudan, a no-fly zone, a freeze of Sudanese officials' assets, prosecution of the killers by the International Criminal Court, a team effort by African and Arab countries to pressure Sudan, and an international force of African troops with financing and logistical support from the West.

But that's the narrow answer. What will really stop this genocide is indignation. Senator Paul Simon, who died in 2003, said after the Rwandan genocide, "If every member of the House and Senate had received 100 letters from people back home saying we have to do something about Rwanda, when the crisis was first developing, then I think the response would have been different."

The same is true this time. Web sites like www.darfurgenocide.org and www.savedarfur.org are trying to galvanize Americans, but the response has been pathetic.

I'm sorry for inflicting these horrific photos on you. But the real obscenity isn't in printing pictures of dead babies - it's in our passivity, which allows these people to be slaughtered.

During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn't fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.

This time, we have no excuse.

of 200,000 UN troops in Africa. Instead of in the Middle East!!