Pakistan's Tribal Areas "Proto-Darfur"?

August 22, 2004

Recently international observers were exasperated when the UN Security Council rejected any concrete ultimatum to the Sudan, largely under pressure from Pakistan's delegation (HC). The African Union is discussing alternatives at Nigeria's capital, Abuja (BBC; Passion of the Present). These are actually a resumption of talks that broke down in July after the rebels left the table.

The world press is full today of the news that Sudan has signed an agreement with the UN to repatriate refugees voluntarily-rather than forcing them back into unsafe villages -as has been charged by relief organizations... This agreement is a superficial step unless it truly (1) enables the international community more ability to protect the rights of refugees in the field, and (2) is combined with broader attention to security issues across Darfur-where many believe the Sudanese government is continuing its counter-insurgency and ethnic cleansing operations.

Is Pakistan's federally administered tribal area (FATA) turning into another Darfur?

(Read more in Pakistan Archive)

Sudan: Powell Calls Out-September 10, 2004

Secretary of State Colin Powell has testified to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Khartoum government's in Darfur constitute genocide (BBC; text of remarks; source: Passion of the Present). The site Passion is dedicated to this crisis, and I believe I've relied on it with each post on the Sudan. Also, the editorial caliber of the site has definitely improved. Jim Moore, one of the staff, responded to a query about the legitimacy of taking action against the Khartoum government. I myself had been skeptical at first, on the grounds that the violence in Darfur appeared to be instigated by outside forces with an eye to establishing a sort of tutelage over the country.

The first remark is by Wikus Hattingh of the RSA

Comments, Passion: Wikus Hattingh:....Why isn't anybody holding the rebels responsible for a) starting this war and b) refusing to cease-fire? ...Remember also that Mr. Powell's case for genocide hinges on the supposed fact that it is non-Arab blacks that are being decimated...The plainest indications are that this is the latest manifestation of ancient feuding between nomads and settled tribes. What is new is the presence of armed rebels. Who is arming them? By pronouncing a guilty sentence on the Sudanese government, America is merely opening up another front in its war against Islam, this time hoping to enlist black Africa's support as well. The supposed "humanitarian" nature of this intervention will conveniently serve to distract from criticism of its role in Iraq.

JM: However, in important ways the Sudan and Iraq cases are near opposites. In the case of Sudan the pressure to act has come mainly through worldwide civil society, rather than governments. The initial evidence for crimes against humanity was mainly collected by independent private organizations, which are involved in development and relief efforts. This is very different from Iraq, where the main evidence and justification for intervention came from intelligence agencies such as the CIA, as well as from members of the well-organized Iraqi exile community. The reason that many of us are nearly in tears over today's announcement is that there has been so little action on the part of the great powers, the US included, in a situation that has been in dire need of outside help for many months. If you go back and look at the record you will see that those most actively calling for action are humanitarian, human rights and religious organizations. Our own blog and web campaign is made up of a very wide spectrum of concerned citizens, from around the world, including from Africa. If you check links to our three basic URLs through Technorati, you can get a sense of the diversity and independence of our grassroots network. The Save Darfur Coalition is made up of over a hundred religious, charitable, and humanitarian organizations. DarfurGenocide.org is supported by Faithful America, a project of the US National Council of Churches. [...] President Obasanjo of Nigeria, who is leading the AU effort has, I believe, been even-handed with both the government and the rebels, and has chastised both sides as necessary. But he has concluded over the past few weeks that the government continues to work with the militias to carry out atrocities. Obasanjo and his colleagues have concluded that what is needed is a large AU peacekeeping force to stop the violence and to start to sort out how to move forward toward a peaceful, diverse Sudan. I don't think that most observers share your sense of causality in regard to this crisis. Perhaps in a temporal sense the rebels committed violence first by attacking the government. I don't know. But one cannot argue that rebel attacks, even if they were indeed first, "caused" the larger humanitarian crisis, with more than a million innocent people made homeless, and thousands killed, maimed, raped and terrorised. The cause of the humanitarian crisis-whatever its initiation-is a massive and well-documented campaign of systematic attacks on and destruction of villages across a vast area, carried out by government bombers and helicopter gunships attacking in conjunction with ground forces of militia and government troops. It is the nature and magnitude and targeting of this campaign that constitutes the genocide. It does not matter from the standpoint of either morality or international law whether this campaign is being conducted for purposes of counter-insurgency, or whether the first aggressor was a rebel or a government unit. It does not matter who the opponents of the government are, nor who they are supported by. The crime of genocide can never be justified.