Africabeat

Mahmoud Mamdani on Darfur

I have in the past on this blog taken potshots at the SaveDarfurers; my essential criticism is that many seem like hypocrites or bandwagoners engaging in advocacy without really understanding what it is they are advocating or why.  (I don't necessarily mean that you are, rather only that most are.)

The most common defense I hear from readers runs somewhere along the lines of, "at least they're doing something!" or "but we can't just do nothing!  we have to do something!"  or "doing something is better than doing nothing at all" etc.

Something. Nothing. Nothing something nothing.

Mahmoud Mamdani, I believe, offers an explanation for this stunning lack of articulateness in an essay  published last March in the London Review of Books when he argues that in America, the Darfur conflict has been "emptied of its political content."  He reasons this is why it's easier for sunny college kids to advocate the end of mass murder in Darfur than in Iraq, where we Americans are much more conscious that the situation has moral and political complexities--even if we can't exactly name them--not to mention our own complicity in their creation; or at least I naively cling to the hope that we have become aware of that much, even though it is certainly easier to wage a theoretical battle against a theoretical evil in lands that may as well be theoretical than it is to admit your own, very concrete sins.

From the Democracy Now interview:

Well, I was struck by the fact—because I live nine months in New York and three months in Kampala, and every morning I open the New York Times, and I read about sort of violence against civilians, atrocities against civilians, and there are two places that I read about—one is Iraq, and the other is Darfur—sort of constantly, day after day, and week after week. And I’m struck by the fact that the largest political movement against mass violence on US campuses is on Darfur and not on Iraq. And it puzzles me, because most of these students, almost all of these students, are American citizens, and I had always thought that they should have greater responsibility, they should feel responsibility, for mass violence which is the result of their own government’s policies. And I ask myself, “Why not?” I ask myself, “How do they discuss mass violence in Iraq and options in Iraq?” And they discuss it by asking—agonizing over what would happen if American troops withdrew from Iraq. Would there be more violence? Less violence? But there is no such agonizing over Darfur, because Darfur is a place without history, Darfur is a place without politics. Darfur is simply a dot on the map. It is simply a place, a site, where perpetrator confronts victim. And the perpetrator’s name is Arab, and the victim’s name is African. And it is easy to demonize. It is easy to hold a moral position which is emptied of its political content. This bothered me, and so I wrote about it. (emphasis added)

A very smart man with very many smart things to say.  Read more of this argument in Mamdani's LRB essay or check out the Democracy Now interview transcript.

US Praises China...for Role in Darfur

When it comes to Africa, much of the West's anti-China furor is directed at China's Sudan policy: China has major oil interests in Darfur and has appeared completely unwilling to divest or use any of its considerable political power to persuade Sudanese President Omar El Bashir to accept an international peacekeeping force.  China's pursuit of its oil self-interest, these critics charge, is bankrolling genocide.

However, last Friday, the US special envoy to Sudan, Andrew S. Natsios, made a point of praising China for its efforts to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur.  "I think they're engaging much more aggressively."  High praise indeed.

Has China's policy really changed, or are the media just getting bored of their old angle?  Maybe Chinese foreign policy really is suspectible to public opinion after all - if not always their own public, than the international public.  In addition to the oft-repeated China -> oil -> Darfur -> genocide story, there is also that old familiar line about China's desire to be perceived as a legitimate, respectable international power and member of the international community.

"China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, was critical to securing Sudan's participation in a recent international accord aimed at replacing a flagging African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur with a larger U.N. contingent," a Washington Post article reported. Read more...

China's Role in the Darfur Genocide

Western countries argue that China is undermining its efforts to force the Sudanese government to end the genocide in Darfur.  Sudan currently sells more than half of its oil to China, and bids for all rights always include aid, loans, infrastructure and...weapons.

U.S. Considering Air Strikes in Sudan?

French newspaper Le Monde reports an anonymous source who claims that the Bush administration is considering (or has considered) air strikes against Sudanese military installations to inhibit their ability to conduct attacks in Darfur.

des "frappes chirurgicales" sont "bel et bien considérées", et permettraient "à la communauté internationale de gagner du temps pour monter une réponse plus solide aux réticences soudanaises".

Leur objet serait de détruire, au moins partiellement, les moyens aériens soudanais, de façon à empêcher les bombardements des civils et d'entraver le ravitaillement des renforts de l'armée soudanaise au Darfour, qui y a massé près de 30 000 hommes supplémentaires.

"surgical strikes" have been "considered time and again," and would allow "the international community to win some time to mount a more solid response to Sudanese reluctance to cooperate."

Their object would be to destroy, at least partially, Sudanese air capabilities to prevent strikes on civilians and to hinder the Sudanese army from sending reinforcements to Darfur, where nearly 30,000 additional men have already amassed.

I did a search of the 1000 feeds I have stored in my Feed Demon program (yes, my computer hates me everyday for them) and I found not one other mention of the story.  I'm going to assume that Le Monde is overstating whatever attention the Bush administration may have given to this option, and that the title for the article ("Washington studies airstrike option against the Sudan") is an ill-considered attempt to grab attention.

Still, I've given the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt and been proven wrong before.  Who knows what crazy ideas can be hatched in the minds of people so woefully out of step with the rest of the world even as they have their tentacles absolutely everywhere in it?

Darfur: On Divestment

A lot of happenings this week on the Darfur front.  I have a roundup at my World News site which you can read there. 

My takeaway?  I love how the entire Bush administration is mobilizing to "Save Darfur" even as it has worked to bury proposed legislation that is the centerpiece of a divestment campaign that would force American investors to pull money out of any company doing business in Sudan. 

I suppose words are cheaper than turning one's back to one's oil buddies.

The less cynical voice in my head wonders if U.S. divestment would be enough to push the Khartoum's hand and agree to allow UN peacekeepers into the country.  (I don't have all the figures so I cannot even begin to guess, although apparently the equity at stake is reportedly in the tens of billions.)  Maybe the Bush administration is just waiting and seeing if it can convince the Chinese to use their "moral suasion" (i.e., soaring oil demand) to get the Sudanese government on board, and divestment might only piss the Chinese off. 

Oil companies that would be affected by  American divestment include: PetroChina, Sinopec, ABB, Alstom, Siemens, Schlumberger, Tatneft of Russia, Italy's Finmeccanica, Weir Group of the UK, and Shell. 

Yup...on second thought, my vote is on the oil vote.

Frantic Diplomacy Tries to Salvage Darfur Peace

A lot of happenings this week on the Darfur front.  I have a roundup at my World News site which you can read there or see my takeaway.

China in Africa: China is Not the (Only) Devil

The comment below I drafted in response to: U.S.-China Relations: An Apology of Sorts  I've decided to post the comment here instead as Bill's original thread has nothing to do with the Sudan and I was going completely off-topic.  I don't offer a solution to any of the previous discussions on Jewels in the Jungle and Chippla's Weblog - Thoughts and Issues, just some ideas that I hope will spur more discussion.

First, I apologize for my absurdly slow repsonse. 

I'm not sure how to defend the Chinese government's actions in the Sudan, but nor do I think that just because I have a more neutral view on the issue of Chinese involvement in Africa (i.e., that there are aspects that are both promising and troubling) that I have to.  And if I did, it would get me started on a long tangent about the history of immorality in the pursuit of oil and other natural resources that would lead me to the conclusion that again, China is not the devil, it's Europe circa the mid-19th century, Japan circa 1940 or the United States circa right about now.

Is the Conflict in Darfur Genocide?

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”  The Analects of Confucius - On Rectifying Names

When George Clooney was in Darfur (the same week as the fictitious doctors of ER made their pilgrimage), I read a number of Op-Eds in American and British newspapers asking whether the conflict in Darfur is really a "genocide."

I have a poll over at World News which asks just that question.

I did not offer my own opinion there, as I'm not one for attempting to influence the way people vote in internet polls.  But of course, I do have one.

I am not a lawyer, and I hardly consider myself qualified to make any determination of whether the Darfur conflict meets the legal definition of genocide.  Darfur is not as clear-cut a case of genocide as Rwanda was, and I do have my own doubts about whether the killings, forced migration, and starvation are really as ethnically-motivated as the media often suggests.

But does it really matter?   Should that really have an ounce of bearing on what our other nations' reponsibilities or actions should be?

Humans - and politicians in particular - often use language not in the service of truth, but to confuse others or to advance their own agendas (just ask George Orwell).

And so getting wrapped up in a word, when words are so easily manipulated and hold different meanings for whoever uses them, detracts from the problem at hand: that there are people dying and suffering in Darfur and the international community is either incapable or unwilling to do anything - at least anything adequate - about it.  And in my view, addressing that truth is much more important than dissecting the debate that is happening around it. 

To put it another way, if someone is pointing a gun at your friend's head, do you try and take away the gun, or ask the bystanders what kind of caliber they think the gun is?  Do you really have to rectify the name of the gun before you act?

Technorati Tags: Darfur, Genocide, Sudan, Chad, Africa, Civil War, Save Darfur

Darfur: The Making of a Genocide

I've been writing about World News for About.com for a little more than two months now, and found myself absolutely exhausted and discouraged by the prospect of doing a reasonably decent job of covering the entire planet's current events in my spare time.

I've come up with a new strategy now, which will involve making simple, 101 picture books on the world's most pressing conflicts, challenges, etc.  I realize that not everyone blogs or follows the news that closely, and that a simple user-friendly way of explaining world events might attract new visitors with the added benefit of being socially useful.

My first such album is on the genocide in Darfur.  I did not get into the nuances of the conflict and I hope it stands your scrutiny :-) , but I do think it can give the completely uninitiated reader the tools necessary to understand what they read about Darfur in their newspaper or see on their TVs.

See: Darfur: The Making of a Genocide

Sure, the full page ads of backing housewives, well-fed women who want to lose weight, and consumer electronics are a bit incongruous, but I actually think the contracts makes a nice, not so subtle statement about our priorities.

*  *  *

Ethan Zuckerman's My Heart's in Accra, has a great post on Darfur that sharply criticizes Second Life, a company that hopes to use real world data to make 3D simulations of conflicts like the one in Darfur.  Unfortunately, their current sim looks more family campfire than refugee camp.

Technorati Tags: Darfur, Genocide, Sudan, Chad, Africa, Civil War, Save Darfur, Refugees

Photo: Copyright IRIN