We must move beyond the idea that we only raise the alarm and scream bloody murder when an atrocity is committed by Americans, or by rich against poor, or by whites against blacks, or by Jews against
March 22, 2005 (Press Release) --
I live by a few simple philosophies, one of which is that without exception, those who seek or demand to be treated as an equal, must unequivocally treat all others as equals. It is within this context that I view the almost deafening silence of the Arab world on the conflict in the Darfur region of the Arab State of Sudan, as being both tragic and hypocritical.
People around the world vehemently denounce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one in which a superpower acting in its own self-interest, unashamedly assists an oppressor. This commentator in particular strongly advocates a just and peaceful settlement - one that upholds the full rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, while allowing Israelis to live in peace and security. Arab countries, including Sudan, have of course been strident in their condemnation of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and throughout the history of that conflict, have done almost everything in their power to change the status quo.
The question therefore is this; if Arab countries so believe in justice for the oppressed, why are they not doing more for the people of Darfur?
The Arab League Summit is now underway and not surprisingly, Palestine is high on the agenda – as it always is. So is the issue of Lebanon and Syria. However, Darfur is hardly being mentioned. Why are Arab states not placing pressure on the Sudanese government to cease their heinous activities – the same kind of pressure they would have us all place on Israel and the US for what they are doing to Palestinians.
In order to satisfy myself that this is not just a case of the western press ignoring other commentators, I visited the Al-Jazeera and Arab League websites. Neither site highlighted the conflict. This is unbelievable given that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warns; “the risk of genocide is frighteningly real”. I did find one report stating that the Qatari Relief Committee was sending aid to the victims. In contrast, the Palestinian issue is highly visible, although that situation is certainly no more urgent than the one in Darfur.
The facts of the Darfur conflict make very grim reading. Over two million ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands killed, thousands of women raped and vast numbers suffering from disease and starvation. Black Africans are the victims and their oppressors are Arabs, their co-religionists, who in fact look at least as black. The scale of the disaster and the methodical approach to the destruction of people and property indicates that the stakes go well beyond any notion of ethnic difference. For that, we can thank the US and its European allies, nothing new you might say, but China is also now playing a prominent role.
In 1994, the UN failed to act on the genocide in Rwanda and 800,000 people died. That inaction was based on an obscene ruse. Once the UN recognizes a conflict as being akin to genocide, it places an onus on all its members to take appropriate action. In order to avoid this liability the powers simply avoided the use of the word genocide. The Clinton Administration in particular forbade the use of the ugly “G” word, thus ensuring that America would not have to commit troops to peacekeeping efforts.
This time around, the US has actually use the “G” word but has failed to act accordingly. There is a simple reason for this. The Americans are interested in Sudan’s large oil and gas reserves. As such, while they do protest, they remain unwilling to totally upset the Sudanese government, fearing they might lose out when the concessions are granted. So they are adopting a carrot and stick approach in the hope that they will get what they want. In a similar vein, the British, the French and other Europeans including the Russians, are all carefully managing their criticism and jockeying for position. Simultaneously, a rapidly industrializing China with a ravenous appetite for oil from whatever source, especially one not controlled by the US, is unwilling to consider any type of sanction against the Sudanese – particularly if it involves restricting oil exports.
So there we have it, the hapless victims of what is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster are being sacrificed for oil. We might again say that is nothing new; the west in particular has repeatedly played that particular game, Iraq being merely the most recent example, but it gets even worse. If you think that pouring oil on troubled waters is bad, then try uranium. The Darfur region has deposits of uranium, the raw material for nuclear reactors and bombs. This provides the competing powers with even fewer incentives to behave honorably.
From empire, to colonization and then to globalization, we would have been shocked if the west had behaved any differently. As for the Chinese, given their ethnic cleansing in Tibet, with over a million people killed in decades of persecution, it is unlikely that with oil now blurring their vision, that they will be altruistic in their approach. Interestingly enough, the current Chinese leader Hu Jintao, was once Communist Party Secretary for Tibet. So, do not expect any respite from that quarter.
Notwithstanding the machination of the major powers, the truth of the matter is that the primary responsibility for ending this conflict rests with the Sudanese government. As they have proved themselves unwilling to do that, then it is incumbent on the Arab League to urge its erstwhile member to improve its behavior. The African Union should also be making its voice heard. If the AU truly believes in justice, then it should exhibit the same rigid intolerance now, as it did when South Africa was under Apartheid.
This is a particularly moot point.
During Apartheid, one of the things that most concerned me was the fact that the human rights records of many African countries were worse than that of the hated Pretoria regime. Mengistu, the mass murdering communist leader of Ethiopia instantly springs to mind. Unfortunately, this anomaly undermined much of the moral basis for challenging Apartheid and only served to prolong that particular form of tyranny. It is this same legacy that facilitates the despotic rule of Robert Mugabe, a man who refuses to give grain to starving people because they are not his supporters. Where now are the people who rallied and railed against Apartheid? Where were they when Mugabe was killing thousands in Matebeleland? Why is the AU not more active in its opposition to Mugabe? Why, of all the people in the world, is the current South African President, Thabo Mbeki supporting him?
If we truly believe in Equal Lives, then we must move beyond the idea that we only protect our own. We must move beyond the idea that we only raise the alarm and scream bloody murder when an atrocity is committed by Americans, or by rich against poor, or by whites against blacks, or by Jews against Muslims. If we truly want others to believe that when we talk about equal rights and justice that we do so with all sincerity, then we must demand equal rights and justice not just for ourselves, our ethnic group or our co-religionists – but for every single human being.
Otherwise, the west, the Chinese and everyone else for that matter will continue to take advantage of the developing world. As my dearly departed grandmother used to warn me whenever I did something she considered inappropriate; “If patient nuh care, then doctor nuh care”.
People around the world vehemently denounce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one in which a superpower acting in its own self-interest, unashamedly assists an oppressor. This commentator in particular strongly advocates a just and peaceful settlement - one that upholds the full rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, while allowing Israelis to live in peace and security. Arab countries, including Sudan, have of course been strident in their condemnation of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and throughout the history of that conflict, have done almost everything in their power to change the status quo.
The question therefore is this; if Arab countries so believe in justice for the oppressed, why are they not doing more for the people of Darfur?
The Arab League Summit is now underway and not surprisingly, Palestine is high on the agenda – as it always is. So is the issue of Lebanon and Syria. However, Darfur is hardly being mentioned. Why are Arab states not placing pressure on the Sudanese government to cease their heinous activities – the same kind of pressure they would have us all place on Israel and the US for what they are doing to Palestinians.
In order to satisfy myself that this is not just a case of the western press ignoring other commentators, I visited the Al-Jazeera and Arab League websites. Neither site highlighted the conflict. This is unbelievable given that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warns; “the risk of genocide is frighteningly real”. I did find one report stating that the Qatari Relief Committee was sending aid to the victims. In contrast, the Palestinian issue is highly visible, although that situation is certainly no more urgent than the one in Darfur.
The facts of the Darfur conflict make very grim reading. Over two million ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands killed, thousands of women raped and vast numbers suffering from disease and starvation. Black Africans are the victims and their oppressors are Arabs, their co-religionists, who in fact look at least as black. The scale of the disaster and the methodical approach to the destruction of people and property indicates that the stakes go well beyond any notion of ethnic difference. For that, we can thank the US and its European allies, nothing new you might say, but China is also now playing a prominent role.
In 1994, the UN failed to act on the genocide in Rwanda and 800,000 people died. That inaction was based on an obscene ruse. Once the UN recognizes a conflict as being akin to genocide, it places an onus on all its members to take appropriate action. In order to avoid this liability the powers simply avoided the use of the word genocide. The Clinton Administration in particular forbade the use of the ugly “G” word, thus ensuring that America would not have to commit troops to peacekeeping efforts.
This time around, the US has actually use the “G” word but has failed to act accordingly. There is a simple reason for this. The Americans are interested in Sudan’s large oil and gas reserves. As such, while they do protest, they remain unwilling to totally upset the Sudanese government, fearing they might lose out when the concessions are granted. So they are adopting a carrot and stick approach in the hope that they will get what they want. In a similar vein, the British, the French and other Europeans including the Russians, are all carefully managing their criticism and jockeying for position. Simultaneously, a rapidly industrializing China with a ravenous appetite for oil from whatever source, especially one not controlled by the US, is unwilling to consider any type of sanction against the Sudanese – particularly if it involves restricting oil exports.
So there we have it, the hapless victims of what is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster are being sacrificed for oil. We might again say that is nothing new; the west in particular has repeatedly played that particular game, Iraq being merely the most recent example, but it gets even worse. If you think that pouring oil on troubled waters is bad, then try uranium. The Darfur region has deposits of uranium, the raw material for nuclear reactors and bombs. This provides the competing powers with even fewer incentives to behave honorably.
From empire, to colonization and then to globalization, we would have been shocked if the west had behaved any differently. As for the Chinese, given their ethnic cleansing in Tibet, with over a million people killed in decades of persecution, it is unlikely that with oil now blurring their vision, that they will be altruistic in their approach. Interestingly enough, the current Chinese leader Hu Jintao, was once Communist Party Secretary for Tibet. So, do not expect any respite from that quarter.
Notwithstanding the machination of the major powers, the truth of the matter is that the primary responsibility for ending this conflict rests with the Sudanese government. As they have proved themselves unwilling to do that, then it is incumbent on the Arab League to urge its erstwhile member to improve its behavior. The African Union should also be making its voice heard. If the AU truly believes in justice, then it should exhibit the same rigid intolerance now, as it did when South Africa was under Apartheid.
This is a particularly moot point.
During Apartheid, one of the things that most concerned me was the fact that the human rights records of many African countries were worse than that of the hated Pretoria regime. Mengistu, the mass murdering communist leader of Ethiopia instantly springs to mind. Unfortunately, this anomaly undermined much of the moral basis for challenging Apartheid and only served to prolong that particular form of tyranny. It is this same legacy that facilitates the despotic rule of Robert Mugabe, a man who refuses to give grain to starving people because they are not his supporters. Where now are the people who rallied and railed against Apartheid? Where were they when Mugabe was killing thousands in Matebeleland? Why is the AU not more active in its opposition to Mugabe? Why, of all the people in the world, is the current South African President, Thabo Mbeki supporting him?
If we truly believe in Equal Lives, then we must move beyond the idea that we only protect our own. We must move beyond the idea that we only raise the alarm and scream bloody murder when an atrocity is committed by Americans, or by rich against poor, or by whites against blacks, or by Jews against Muslims. If we truly want others to believe that when we talk about equal rights and justice that we do so with all sincerity, then we must demand equal rights and justice not just for ourselves, our ethnic group or our co-religionists – but for every single human being.
Otherwise, the west, the Chinese and everyone else for that matter will continue to take advantage of the developing world. As my dearly departed grandmother used to warn me whenever I did something she considered inappropriate; “If patient nuh care, then doctor nuh care”.
Email
Print
Download
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
