Darfur Genocide Reveals World's Quiet Savagery

....

In a chapter of great import to the situation in Darfur (entitled "The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man"), Hannah Arendt writes about how totalitarian politics visibly exposed "the sufferings of more and more groups of people to whom suddenly the rules of the world around them had ceased to apply".

Arendt continues: "It was precisely the seeming stability of the surrounding world that made each group forced out of its protective boundaries look like an unfortunate exception to an otherwise sane and normal rule, and which filled with equal cynicism victims and observers of an apparently unjust and abnormal fate."

History recalls that the lives of various minority peoples in Europe - most notably the Jews and Gypsies - were threatened only after "a condition of complete rightlessness was created". The huge irony, which Arendt explains, is that these "stateless minorities" ought to have been able to fall back on their supposedly "inalienable" human rights.

In fact, for these unfortunates it was, in a sense, not that they were oppressed but that nobody wanted to oppress them: "Only in the last stage of a rather lengthy process is their right to live threatened; only if they remain perfectly 'superfluous', if nobody can be found to 'claim' them, may their lives be in danger."

Darfur Genocide Reveals World's Quiet Savagery

... UN expert says

6 August 2004 – The extrajudicial killings of civilians in western and southern Sudan have been mainly coordinated by the national military and militias backed by the Khartoum Government, which must take quick action to disarm irregular forces and protect its people, a United Nations human rights expert has said.
<snip>

The slow pace of the Government's response to its own citizens' cries for help for many years showed either "complete disrespect for the right to life," especially in Darfur, or, "at worst, complicity in the events," Ms. Jahangir observes.
<snip>

Citing evidence of "large-scale extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions," she recommends a series of measures, including steps to end the culture of impunity prevailing in Sudan.

After having held talks in Khartoum, the three states of Darfur and Upper Nile State, as well as in Nairobi, Kenya, and Cairo, Egypt, she sent Sudan's Permanent Mission to the UN a copy of her findings. The Government failed to offer a response, according to the report.
<snip>

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11576&Cr=sudan&Cr1=

Probably due to a "limited mandate", this "UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings" obviously does not even begin to address the problem of the armed insurgency by the DEM and SLA and how the government of Sudan is supposed to restore order in the face of obstructive tactics by these well armed insurgents.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to notice that

"The expert held an open meeting of representatives of Darfur's Arab and African militias in Khartoum. According to the report, both sides acknowledged that the Government had given them weapons, ..."

BOTH sides received weapons from the government?

Okay, the Rapporteur goes on to say that the "Arabs" received more, and that "A large number of people whom I met had a strong perception that the Government was pursuing a policy of 'Arabization' of the Sudan", but ... at the same time points out that the government carried out

"military operations against civilians through its armed forces, including the Popular Defence Forces, and sponsoring militias, including from some ethnically Arab tribes," ????


That appears to be profoundly confusing.

That's not so confusing, is it?

is also the savagery by the very country that is called upon by certain advocates to solve this crisis when it

- first carried out a campaign of SHOCK AND AWE killing an unknown number of civilians combatants who were defending their country against this aggression -- and this is not to speak of the profound destruction of infrastructure and environment during this massacre and way before;

- then abrogated a valid constitution, installed a puppet government and now continues to wreak havoc pillaging and killing and raping insurgents who claim their fair share of resources of their own country as well as civilians getting into the way ...

Among the countless images and tales of war crimes carried out by the agents of this foreign country, one particularly sticks in my mind:

The disgusting grin on the face of some American dumbshit who explains in Moore's documentary how they're setting fire on everything and then sings at about 57 minutes into the film:

"The roof is on fire ... we don't need no water let the motherfucker burn, burn motherfucker, burn ..."

He will make for a fitting ersatz when the "Gangaweed" will have to be replaced, and new free-fire zones will have to be declared.

I saw your civilized response to reports of children being tossed into fires:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=712340

On this board I have posted hundreds of times on the topic of the Iraq invasion, crimes of war committed by US forces there, and crimes against humanity authorized by the Bush administration. I don't particularly recall your contributions to those discussions, but I shall always remember your expressions of moral outrage at those who speak out against genocide.

You know what sticks in my mind when I think of genocide? The smiling face of some German dumbshit? No, not really. No doubt there are many photos of smiling German genocidaires. It's not the first image that pops to mind, though.

btw, have you seen the Wehrmacht exhibit? I understand there were a lot of protests surrounding the exhibit. How did you come down on the controversy?

Sure I have seen it, the first version authored by Hannes Heer. I actually have the catalogue right here beside me on my book shelf.

It was off the road for a lnog time and later rearranged, first because somebody made a fuss about a few pictures not being authentic (which I think was a totally overblown issue), then, from what I heard, it was completely rearranged and "softened", so as not to hurt the feelings of those who already had begun supporting and engaging in new wars (yes, Kosovo).

This first version was very impressive (did not see the later one), and I had quite a few discussions about it in another forum at the time. In one photo that I found particularly disturbing I thought I had recognized my uncle, whose name am given to remember him (he died during the war from hunger, as a prisoner in a Soviet camp). Talked about that intensively with my entire family - and I have to admit that I imagined then for the first time the possibility that this uncle whose name I bore could have taken part in such shameful acts as hanging so-called "partisans" from trees. My generation knew, of course, what had happened, through family tales, literature, and to a certain extent -- at least since the seventies -- through the media.

By and large, though, memories of the horrors of war and the crimes that came with it were long suppressed: I know of families where such topics were tabu. And I know of stupid fucks, even in my extended family, on whom any attempt at "re-education" had been lost: even 30 years after the fact they were still bragging how they had torched the "Commies" out of their holes in Russia. I am dead sure that you would have seen a great many vicious grins on faces of German dumbshits, had WWII been televised!

Such stupid fucks still exist. The authoritarian character has not died out, not at all. Give them a pretext, and they will not hesitate to engage in hate and kill. You can see quite a few of these right now, right here, if you go to the next pub around the corner. Germany is certainly not lacking in stupid fucks who would go to war rather sooner than later! (Or would send others to do it, anyway).

On the other hand, the younger generation is on the whole better educated -- that is at least my impression -- and it is also because of memories of the war still being alive in people that we have a rather healthy and relatively wide-spread anti-war feeling prevailing here. I hope it will stick with us, despite frequent attempts from various quarters to find excuses for funding and entertaining more, or more active, military forces.

... responsible for extrajudicial and summary executions of large numbers of people over the last several months in the Darfur region, as well as in the Shilook Kingdom in Upper Nile State," said Asma Jahangir, the UN investigator on executions, in a report based on a 13-day visit to the region in June.

"The current humanitarian disaster unfolding in Darfur, for which the government is largely responsible, has put millions of civilians at risk, and it is very likely that many will die in the months to come as a result of starvation and disease," said Jahangir, a Pakistani lawyer.
<snip>

"I remain seriously concerned at the very slow and negligent reaction of the government toward the situation unfolding in Darfur," Jahangir said. "Such a reaction, despite the huge international outcry, would appear to indicate either complete disrespect for the right to life of the population of Darfur, or, at worst, complicity in the events."
<snip>

from
UN rights probe takes Sudan to task
Humanitarian disaster' called government's fault
By Alexander G. Higgins, Associated Press
August 7, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/08/07/un_rights_probe_takes_sudan_to_task_/


Does that help?

'including from some ethnically Arab tribes' means that not all Arab tribes are taking part in the killing.

Both sides received weapons from the government, because both were recruited to the Popular Defence Force - which was first set up in 1989. This meant they were given weapons by the government. The government is now using the members of the PDF from some Arab tribes to massacre the civilians of Darfur. These outnumber the non-Arab PDF members (or at least outgun them).

"sponsoring militias, including from some ethnically Arab tribes,"

means:

1. sponsoring militias,


2. including
(i. e. not existing exclusively of)

3. from some
(yes, here I think you are correct, this means "not all")

4. Arab tribes.

So some militias of Arab tribes are not sponsored, or have no militia, and some militia are not from ethnically Arab tribes, since the sponsored militia INCLUDE such tribes.

I read some articles today, including some on the situation in Sudan. Does that mean I only read articles on Sudan? I think not.

Pretty mixed up, the whole thing, and entirely confusing. And some people here would tell us that this is an attempt of one ethnic group to wipe out the other?

Maybe the article sets out to lend weight to the claim that the Sudaness government could "clearly reign in" the militia. If so, the article has failed.

----
"They reportedly only flared up to attain their present magnitude after the Government of Sudan became involved, carrying out military operations against civilians through its armed forces, including the Popular Defence Forces, and sponsoring militias, including from some ethnically Arab tribes," Ms. Jahangir says.

which says that the killing of civilians is largely organised by the government, through its armed forces and the militias it controls; and so therefore the government could withdraw or disarm them whenever they like.

A link to this article recounting the tale of a black man in the Janjaweed was alrady given in this thread.

But his former neighbours knew he was black and held it against him. 'They called me Zurgha (black). They told me: "You are lucky to be here, this camp is only for Arabs."'

When he was recruited, he believed the militia was simply a local defence force. The militia leader, an Arab tribal chieftain named Musa Hilal, told men in the town of Kapkabiyah: 'This area is in danger, and we need volunteers to defend it from the rebels.'
...
The racist character of the militia became evident. 'At the beginning I thought they were giving out weapons for self-defence,' said Yusuf. 'But after I stayed for a few days, I discovered that it was an Arab militia.'

In the first speech militia leader Hilal made in front of the recruits, he told them all African civilians were the enemy. 'He said: "Zurgha support the rebels. We should defeat the rebels,"' Yusuf said.

The militias are killing civilians. That is why they need to be stopped, and why purely humanitarian aid from outside the country is not enough. These militias are targetting civilians from certain ethnic groups. Whether or not it is full blown genocide doe not alter that fact that the government is murdering people, and we must force the government to stop, and hold it accountable.

I note that you are changing the topic now.

You claim that the government "controls" the militia ("Arab" or "non-Arab") when all we have for proof is that they (at least at one time) supported (at least some of) them?

You claim that "the militias" are killing civilians. According to numerous witnesses that seems to be a credible claim.

But instead of pondering about how this could possibly be stopped, you insist without further elaboration that "we" "must" "force" the Sudanese government to do it.

Would you propose to go about it as the US are doing it in Iraq? What do you mean by "forcing the government" - do you mean killing civilians? Maybe up to 37000 or more? "Hold it accountable" - in whose name? How dare you speak of "we" when it is people in Africa you are talking about? What is our business there, anyway?

And isn't "hold them accountable" a typical, empty phrase like Bush was using when he invaded Iraq? I say, BS. Can't you at least develop your own vocabulary to deal with perceived threats to humanity? Shouldn't such requests take into account the situation as a whole? Shouldn't someone who makes such claims be able to demonstrate a viable solution to the conflict? What about the insurgents? But no. "We" are just calling for the military. Since we is who rule the world. Thanks, I go vomit now.

If you're still in doubt as to whether she meant to militias were killing under control of the government, here's another article on Ms. Jahangir's report to the UN:

"... I have to conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that extrajudicial killings of civilians in Darfur have been carried out, with some exceptions, in a coordinated manner by the armed forces of the government and government-backed militias," she said.
...
Jahangir rejected the Khartoum government's denials of complicity in atrocities.

"There is no doubt that there is a link between some of the militia groups and government forces, as some of the militia leaders have been integrated into the Sudanese armed forces and given official military ranks," she wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/08/06/sudan.report.reut/

I am the one who is considering how the killing might be stopped. All you have called for is humanitarian aid - which won't stop the murders. "Forcing the government" means threatening them with sanctions - not food, but arms boycotts, and other sanctions designed to decrease the power of the government. We may also need to get troops into Darfur to guard refugees and food; to stop the Janajweed killing more people; and to force them to disarm. If these are African troops (preferably not from neighbouring countries), then that should send a clear signal that it is not an attempt to take permanent control. But at the very least they will need backup from the rest of the world - which means primarily Europe and North America, since those are the richest countries with the military and financial resources.

"Hold them accountable" means they should face justice - extrajudicial killings are illegal. It's not an empty phrase: plenty of people are calling for it:

Another issue is human rights: investigating claims of genocide and who's responsible. This issue is best parked with an international commission - perhaps a special investigator from the International Criminal Court.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1268647,00.html

Responsibility for ensuring justice in Sudan rests primarily with the Sudanese government. However, the international community as a whole has a duty to fight impunity by bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes under international law through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Ensuring justice means investigating allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, bringing perpetrators, commanders and accomplices to justice in fair trials without the possibility of the death penalty, and ensuring reparations for the victims.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAFR540732004

Establishing an impartial Commission of Experts to examine the evidence concerning crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by all parties in Darfur in 2003-2004, including the nature of the crimes, the identity of the perpetrators, and the role of authorities in the commission of crimes; collect and preserve evidence of the crimes; and make recommendations on appropriate action to ensure accountability for the crimes;

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/darfur8811.htm

that the UN Rapporteur clearly admitted that only

"between some of the militia groups and government forces"

is a link. This clearly means that they are not "in control", that they may not "clearly" be able to reign them all in. Which is what they are called upon to achieve within 30 days.

The other thing that humanitarian interventionists never even consider is the fact that there is an ongoing civil war. If you want to stop the killing, there has to be some kind of idea how to resolve this conflict over resources. Just to take sides and call for punishment of the other resolves nothing, except if you want to prepare the field for an occupation.



>>Misreading The Truth In Sudan

By Sam Dealey
New York Times
08 August 2004

(...)

It may be clear to Washington that Khartoum controls the conflict, but in Darfur the situation is more complex.

Mr. Khaber, for one, denies that his Janjaweed are aligned with anyone. "We are not with the government, we are not with the rebels," he said. "We are in hell. We want what is due." For 25 years, he said, he and his gang have waged war against a succession of regimes that failed to adequately care for his people.

Mr. Khaber's group is made up of Arab and African tribesmen. A dark-skinned Berti African, Mr. Khaber describes himself as an Arab.

(...)

After these rebels launched lightning strikes in February 2003 against military and civilian targets across North Darfur, a surprised Khartoum unleashed Arab tribal militias as a line of defense. Viewing this as carte blanche for vigilantism, these militias now pursue age-old vendettas.

(...)

As despicable as Sudan's regime is, the international community may wish to restrain from setting early deadlines for intervention. Such deadlines only encourage rebel intransigence in pursuing peace deals, as last month's unsuccessful talks in Ethiopia proved. With outside action threatened, there is little incentive for the rebels to negotiate a lasting cease-fire.

Likewise, the threat of international peacekeeping troops could provoke further violence in an already unstable Muslim world. Lately, fliers have appeared in Khartoum mosques urging jihad.

(...)

<<

http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/9435.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/opinion/08dealey.html
(free registration required)

ed. added links

isn't good enough for you? Because there are some bands that are out of control, you think we should ignore the guilt of the Sudanese government, and leave it to them to do whatever they want? If the government is unable to hold back some of the janajweed, then that's another reason to send in troops that can.

should be the first priority.

It is beyond me why anyone would take sides in a conflict on another continent instead of getting their own house in order.

It is beyond me why anyone would call for participation in another war when their own government is already busy with the occupation of several other countries, murdering and raping and torturing countless resistance fighters and civilians in the process.

It is beyond me to understand why some people persist with claims that "we" should take punitive action against other governments while they fail to punish the instigators of war and death in their own country.


On the other hand, as I said in another thread, I support the financial backing of the African Union in its attempt to mediate in the conflict and help the Sudanese government to stop and disarm militias as well as insurgents who continue to fight -- while at the same time negotiations take place in a neutral environment where the war parties can settle their conflicts over the region's resources.