DARFUR IN PERSPECTIVE
By Professor David Hoile
Published by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Chapter 4
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE IN DARFUR
I don’t think that we should be using the word ‘genocide’ to
describe this conflict. Not
at all. This can be a semantic discussion, but nevertheless,
there is no systematic target
–
targeting one ethnic group or another one. It doesn’t mean
either that the situation in
Sudan isn’t extremely serious by itself.
Dr Mercedes Taty, Médecins sans Frontières deputy
emergency director [363] Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention
to kill people of a specific group.
Médecins sans Frontières - France President Dr
Jean-Hervé Bradol [364]
In September 2004, the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell,
responding to domestic pressure from conservative and anti-Islamic
constituencies, declared that events in Darfur constituted “genocide”. [365]
This was despite having stated two months previously that events in
Darfur did not “meet the tests of the definition of genocide”. [366] His
September comment, in the lead-up to the US elections, was widely seen
as both an attempt to divert media attention away from the disastrous
events in Iraq and to pander to the large and well-established anti-Sudan
lobby within the United States. [367] It appears that the Administration has decided that it was to its electoral advantage for the sensationalism and
inaccuracy that has obscured events in Darfur to continue. It was a
simple enough equation. The US election was going to be a very close
run affair. [368] The war in Iraq was a key electoral issue, and that war
continued to go badly. [369] The day before Powell’s Darfur comments had
seen the American military death toll in Iraq since 2003 reach over one
thousand. [370] Darfur was useful to Republican Party strategists for very
simple reasons. The more US television coverage and column inches
devoted to Darfur at the time, the less media time focused on the
worsening situation in Iraq. While ultimately coming down to sheer
electoral opportunism, Powell’s use of the genocide word has
undoubtedly further tarnished the image of the American government. [371]
The American record for crying wolf, in the wake of the Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction fiasco, has not improved. [372]
That this move was a cynical one appeared to have been borne out
almost immediately. Bizarrely, having made a public declaration of
genocide before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Powell then
stated that “[n]o new action is dictated by this determination…So let us
not be too preoccupied with [it]”. [373] This lack of concern can also beseen as an indication that the declaration of genocide was made more as
the result of internal political pressure and politics and less on the reality
of events. An aid worker interviewed by The Observer newspaper
touched on the apparent lack of concern shown by Powell: “It suited
various governments to talk it all up, but they don’t seem to have
thought about the consequences. I have no idea what Colin Powell’s
game is, but to call it genocide and then effectively say, ‘Oh, shucks, but
we are not going to do anything about that genocide’ undermines the
very word ‘genocide’.” [374] In late September 2004 the Secretary of State
Colin Powell admitted that the Bush Administration was alone in having
alleged that genocide was happening in Darfur: “I must say, I am
disappointed that not more nations have made this clear statement of
what’s happening there”. [375]
Understandably, given its transparent political opportunism, many in the
international community have shunned the American declaration. The
United Nations Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, for one, contradicted
American claims: “I cannot call the killing a genocide even though there
have been massive violations of international humanitarian law.” [376] The
African Union’s position has been clearly outlined, most recently by its
current Chairman, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. In early
December 2004, President Obasanjo stated that events in Darfur did not
constitute genocide: “Now, what I know of Sudan it does not fit in all
respects to that definition. The government of Sudan can be condemned,
but it’s not as ... genocide.” Obasanjo stated that “the real issue of
Darfur is governance. It is a political problem which has mushroomed
into a military (one) when the rebels took up arms.” [377] Speaking at a
press conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on 23
September 2004 President Obasanjo had previously stated: “Before you
can say that this is genocide or ethnic cleansing, we will have to have a
definite decision and plan and program of a government to wipe out a
particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide, ethnic cleansing. What we know is not that. What we know is that there
was an uprising, rebellion, and the government armed another group of
people to stop that rebellion. That’s what we know. That does not
amount to genocide from our own reckoning. It amounts to of course
conflict. It amounts to violence.” This echoed an earlier African Union
conclusion in July 2004 that “Even though the crisis in Darfur is grave,
with unacceptable levels of death, human suffering and destruction of
homes and infrastructure, the situation cannot be defined as a genocide.”
Similarly, the European Union’s fact-finding mission concluded that,
although there was widespread violence, there was no evidence of
genocide. A spokesman for the mission stated: “We are in not in the
situation of genocide there. But it is clear there is widespread, silent and
slow, killing going on, and village burning on a fairly large scale.” [378]
Of considerably more significance, perhaps, has been the fact that
Washington’s genocide claims have been pointedly criticised by ellrespected
humanitarian groups such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, also known as Doctors Without Borders). [379] MSF-France President Dr
Jean-Hervé Bradol subsequently described American claims of genocide
in Darfur as “obvious political opportunism”. [380] Dr Bradol had
previously stated that the use of the term genocide was inappropriate:
“Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill
people of a specific group. We have received reports of massacres, but
not of attempts to specifically eliminate all the members of a group.” [381]
Dr Mercedes Taty, MSF’s deputy emergency director, who worked with
12 expatriate doctors and 300 Sudanese nationals in field hospitals
throughout Darfur at the height of the emergency, has also warned: “I
don’t think that we should be using the word ‘genocide’ to describe thisconflict. Not at all. This can be a semantic discussion, but nevertheless,
there is no systematic target – targeting one ethnic group or another one.
It doesn’t mean either that the situation in Sudan isn’t extremely serious
by itself.” [382]
Médecins Sans Frontières is an exceptionally credible observer with
regard to allegations of genocide for three reasons. Firstly, MSF was
amongst the first humanitarian groups to establish a presence in Darfur
as the conflict unfolded. MSF is very heavily involved in the provision
of medical and emergency services in all three of the states that make up
Darfur, deploying two thousand staff. [383] It has been actively assisting
hundreds of thousands of people displaced by fighting throughout the
region. Médecins Sans Frontières is also present and engaged in Chad.
MSF, therefore, has a unique institutional awareness of events in Darfur.
Secondly, MSF’s reputation is quite simply beyond reproach. Médecins
Sans Frontières was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999. It
has also received numerous other awards recognising its outstanding
humanitarian work throughout the world. [384] And thirdly, MSF’s record
with regard to genocide is also unambiguous. Dr Bradol, cited above,
headed MSF’s programs in Rwanda in 1994, and spent several weeks
assisting the surgical team that struggled to remain in Kigali during the genocide. Dr Bradol and MSF called for armed intervention in Rwanda
stating “doctors can’t stop genocide”. Dr Bradol has stated that
“Genocide is that exceptional situation in which, contrary to the rule
prohibiting participation in hostilities, the humanitarian movement
declares support for miitary intervention. Unfortunately, an
international military intervention against the genocide never came to
pass and the Rwandan Patriotic Front did not win its military victory
until after the vast majority of victims were killed.” Given the clear
position with regard to genuine genocide taken by Dr Bradol and MSF,
their unambiguous position in pointedly criticising allegations of
genocide in Darfur is all the more powerful.
Reputable British newspapers have also voiced concern at the claims
made by Colin Powell. The London Observer newspaper reported that
international aid workers in Sudan were claiming that American
warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic genocidal
catastrophe, as voiced by the United States Agency for International
Development, had been widely exaggerated by Administration officials
in Washington. It was claimed that a desire for regime change in
Khartoum had coloured their reports. The Observer pointed out that
American genocide claims had been “comprehensively challenged by
eyewitness reports from aid workers and by a new food survey of the
region. The nutritional survey of Sudan’s Darfur region, by the UN
World Food Programme, says that although there are still high levels of
malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being
brought under control.” Many aid workers and officials interviewed by
The Observer were puzzled that Darfur had become the focus of such
hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both
northern Uganda and eastern Congo. [385] The Observer noted that
“Concern about USAID’s role as an honest broker in Darfur has been
mounting for months, with diplomats as well as aid workers puzzled
over its pronouncements and one European diplomat accusing it of ‘plucking figures from the air’.” The newspaper also pointed out that
two of USAID’s most senior officials, director Andrew Natsios, a
former vice-president of the Christian charity World Vision, and Roger
Winter, a former director of the US Committee for Refugees, have long
been hostile to the Sudanese government. [386]
Winter had already attempted, in the course of the civil war in southern
Sudan, to use “genocide” propaganda. While he was director of the US
Committee for Refugees, the organisation published Quantifying
Genocide in the southern Sudan 1983-1993. [387] As Douglas H. Johnson
has noted: “At the release of this report the U.S. Committee for
Refugees pre-empted criticism by suggesting that anyone questioning
that figure was denying the scale of human devastation. Herein lies the
value of the exercise: it is designed to attract attention. [388] Johnson then
quotes David Henige: “Numbers wielded for the immediate benefit of
others – whether statistics collected on crowd sizes or numbers of
homeless estimated – need have no relation to reality, since it is only the
impression that matters.” (389) Considerable caution, therefore, needs to be
exercised before accepting any of the statistical claims made by
American-commissioned reports of war-related deaths in Darfur. [390] In
any instance, USAID claims projecting hundreds of thousands of deathshave been contradicted by the United Nations 2004 end-of-year report
which stated that “The catastrophic mortality figures predicted by some
quarters have not materialised”. [391] Interestingly, while content to use
statistical extrapolations and projections in its ongoing propaganda
campaign against Sudan on Darfur, Washington has been noticeably shy
of accepting any similar statistical extrapolations with regard to its war
in Iraq. [392]
Given the level of international concern about allegations of genocide in
Darfur, the United Nations Security Council established the
International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur pursuant to Security
Council resolution 1564 (2004), adopted on 18 September 2004. A five
member body, chaired by Italian jurist Mr Antonio Cassese, was
appointed by the Secretary-General in October 2004. The Commission
was tasked to “to investigate reports of violations of international
humanitarian law and human rights by all parties” and “to determine
also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred”. It was requested to
report back to the Secretary-General by January 2005. The Commission
reported that while there had been serious violations of human rights in
Darfur, genocide had not occurred. [393]
In her earlier groundbreaking study of media accountability,
Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell, Disease, Famine, War
and Death, Professor Susan Moeller made several points which are
illustrated by recent media coverage of the Darfur crisis, points relevant
to current attempts to label events there as “genocide”. Unlike many
journalists, Professor Moeller has asked the key question “How does
genocide differ, for example, from ethnic, tribal or civil war?” and
warned that “In common parlance and in the media the term genocide
has lost its specific meaning and become almost commonplace. It has
become synonymous with massacre and gross oppression or repression.” [394] Charles Lane, writing in Newsweek, has also observed:
“The world is full of places where one ethnic group is feuding with
another…In every case, the fighting is characterized by atrocities, and
the victims cry genocide.” [395]
This is also a point touched on by David White, the Africa editor of The Financial Times: The word genocide is too freely used. Deliberate attacks on civilians,
including indiscriminate bombing and executions, can certainly be
categorised as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Despite official
denials, there is overwhelming testimony that attacks by Arab militia
riders have been undertaken in joint operations with government
forces. But this is not genocide in the sense of a deliberate plan to kill
a whole population group, as happened in Rwanda. A more plausible
version is that, by exploiting traditional tensions in the region, the
authorities unleashed forces beyond their control and had difficulty
coming to terms with the consequences. Clashes between farmers and
nomadic herders go back for generations in Darfur. Conflict over
land, access to water and the raiding of cattle have got worse in the
past 20 years as a result of drought, desertification and the availability
of modern weapons. At its origin it is a conflict about resources, not
racial hatred. The standard labelling of ‘Arabs’ as opposed to ‘black
Africans’ is misleading inasmuch as both groups are black and both are Muslim. The distinctions are more tribal and cultural. [396]
The issue was also addressed in The World Today, the journal of the
Royal Institute of International Affairs. Peter Quayle, an expert working
with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said
that it would be wrong to label events in Darfur as genocide: “The
conflict is a complex social, political and military struggle for wealth
and power. Although it coincides with racial differences, the ongoing
destruction is a coincidental not motivating purpose.” Referring to the
1954 Genocide Convention, Quayle notes: “The Convention’s two invidious questions ought to be asked. Are non-Arab Darfurians a
people that the Convention protects as a group in whole or in part? And
is this group, if protected, attacked as such? The group appears not to be
a protected group partly because it relies on a regional definition. In
answer to the second unhappy question – are these people being attacked
only because they are members of a protected group? No, Darfurians are
targeted because of the possibility they shelter and sustain rebels.
Outside the conflict zone they are unharmed.” [397]
Claims of genocide have also been pushed by several long-standing anti-
Sudan activists. One of these activists has been Eric Reeves, an English
teacher at Smith College in Massachusetts. He has been active for some
time in a campaign against Sudan. In the course of this campaign Mr
Reeves has written dozens of articles making serious allegations about
events within Sudan. On examination many of these claims have fallen
apart at the seams. Several measured criticisms of Reeves’s approach,
methodology, and especially the sources he has relied upon for his
claims, have been published and republished. [398] Reeves continues to
make, or repeat, serious claims about the situation in Sudan – most
recently focusing on Darfur – without any means of verifying them. He
has, for example, made numerous allegations of genocide and ethnic
cleansing in Darfur. [399] In a deliberate attempt to equate events in Darfur
with the horrific case of Rwanda, Reeves has even used the termgenocidaires in referring to the Sudanese government. [400] He has claimed
that as of January 2004, 400,000 people have died in the Darfur
“genocide” – this almost six times the number of people who are feared
to have died through violence or disease. [401] Figures for the number of
people who have died in the Darfur tragedy vary from the World Health
Organisation’s estimate of 70,000 through to Khartoum’s claim of
5,000. [402] Reeves’ 400,000 number jumped from his own early claims
that deaths were “already approaching 100,000” in late June 2004. [403]
That is to say Reeves now says that between July and December over a
third of a million civilians died in Darfur – apparently without being
documented either by the aid agencies or the many foreign journalists
and diplomats in Darfur. Amazingly he has made these sorts of
assertions while at the same time acknowledgin that such claims are
based on “second-hand accounts” and “fragmentary” accounts. He has
also acknowledged that verification of such claims has been impossible:
“There have been virtually no first-hand accounts by journalists, and the
observations by humanitarian organizations are necessarily scattered”. [404]
In common with several people who have claimed genocide in Darfur,
Reeves has turned a blind eye to any of the reservations made by groups
such as Médecins Sans Frontières about such claims. This is particularly
disingenuous given that Reeves has repeatedly cited MSF as a credible
source on Darfur. [405] Indeed, he states that it was through Médecins Sans Frontières that he first heard about Sudan. [406] Indeed, he cites a “lifechanging”
conversation with the executive director of MSF as the reason
he become in volved with Sudan. [407] Reeves’ selectivity with regard to
which MSF material he wishes to use, especially if it contradicts his
case, is deeply questionable. Despite having noted that Médecins Sans
Frontières “has performed superbly in the field”, Reeves has abruptly
turned on MSF, accusing the organisation of being “disingenuous” and
that it had made “ignorant and presumptuous statements about the issue
of genocide” in Darfur. He dismissed comments by Dr Jean-Hervé
Bradol as a “particular disgrace”. [408]
Given this level of intellectual gerrymandering it is little wonder,
therefore, that Reeves’ has even been criticised, especially on the
genocide issue, by other established long-time anti-Sudan activists. In
July 2004, for example, Jemera Rone, the Human Rights Watch Sudan
specialist – whose work on Sudan has previously been described by
Reeves as “assiduously researched”, “distinguished”, “unsurpassed” and
“trenchant” [409]– publicly asked whether “people like Eric Reeves are
abusing the legal term [genocide] to try and rouse people to act?” [410]
Reeves’ credibility on Darfur is questionable across the board. In a 17
December 2004 commentary, for example, Reeves acted as an apologist
for the cold-blooded murder by rebel Sudan Liberation Army gunmen of
two Save the Children (UK) aid workers, in an attack on their clearlymarked
vehicle, in Darfur on 13 December 2004. [411] The United Nations special envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk unambiguously confirmed rebel
involvement in these deaths. Reeves, however, claims there were
“somewhat conflicting accounts” of the crime. He claims that the
“perpetrator was drunk” while admitting this may not be true. He claims
that there was “a heated debate…about what to do with the aid
workers”. Reeves then claims: “The person responsible for shooting the
two aid workers…was himself summarily shot and killed by his fellow
combatants.” All these assertions are untrue. Reeves attempted to
downplay the murders by claiming that “the insurgents have shown
inadequate discipline, even as they confront appalling provocation.”
Quite what “appalling provocation” by aid workers helping to keep
civilians in Darfur alive justifies cold-blooded murder is not made clear
by Reeves. He also queried whether the SLA had been responsible for
the October 2004 murder of two other Save the Children aid workers in
a land-mine attack. The United Nations confirmed SLA responsibility. [412]
Reeves’s attempt to downplay the December murders as an “action…by
a single drunken soldier” is sickening. This rebel attack on aid workers
was part of a clear and systematic pattern and follows recent rebel
threats against aid workers. [413] In his January 2005 report on Darfur – and referring to rebel actions – the United Nations Secretary-General
reported on what he termed a “new trend” in the pattern of attacks on,
and harassment of, international aid workers: “While previous incidents
have only been aimed at looting supplies and goods, December has seen
acts of murder and vicious assaults on staff, forcing some agencies to
leave Darfur.” [414] Reeves has also claimed that there are “no credible
reports of rebel attacks on civilians as such”. This further attempt to
whitewash the atrocious human rights record of the Darfur rebels was
breathtaking in its dishonesty.
Far from demonstrating the objectivity, discernment and research skills
one would have expected from a Smith College teacher, he has shown
crass selectivity. It comes, however, as no surprise. He has previously embraced similarly serious claims about Sudan. In 2000, for example,
Reeves accepted at face value outlandish newspaper claims that China
was deploying 700,000 soldiers to Sudan to protect Chinese interests in
the Sudanese oil project. [415] Reeves called it an “explosive report” stating “it is highly doubtful that the report comes from thin air, or that
important sources are not behind it.” [416] When asked about this
allegation, however, the British government stated that “We have no
evidence of the presence of any Chinese soldiers in Sudan, let alone the
figure of 700,000 alleged in one press report.” [417] Even the Clinton
Administration, as hostile as it was to the Sudanese authorities,
dismissed the claims, stating that even “the figure of tens of thousands
of troops is just not credible based on information available to us”. [418] He
has also relied upon dubious sources for some of his other claims about
Sudan. These sources have included South African Islamophobes such
as Derek Hammond. [419] Hammond’s website has overtly championed the
“Christian” fight against “the evil of Islam”, referring to the “anti-
Christian religion of Islam”. [420] Amazingly enough, given this sort of
track record, Reeves has been allowed to write on Sudan in Amnesty International publications. [421]
In an independent critique of media coverage of Darfur, Online Journal
has openly criticised Reeves’ claims about Darfur, stating that he “may
be the major source of disinformation (he calls it ‘analysis’) about
Darfur which is then spread throughout the U.S.A…How curious that
the American media latches on to Mr Reeves’ one-sided falsehoods by
way of presented out-of-context half-truths while at the same time ignoring the dispatches of other journalists, including those who have provided eyewitness accounts.” [422]
Allegations that the Darfur Conflict is Racial
One of the other sensationalist themes encountered with respect to the
conflict in Darfur is that it is a racial one in which light-skinned “Arab”
tribes have been engaged in the “ethnic cleansing” of black “African”
tribes. [423] These sorts of claims are particularly inflammatory and very
questionable. Mahmood Mamdani, director of the Institute of African
Studies at Columbia University, noted that “The implication that these
are two different races, one indigenous and the other not is
dangerous.” [424] The simple fact is that there is very little, if any, racial
difference between the many tribes of Darfur, “Arab” or “African”. Both
communities are black. The London Observer newspaper has reported,
for example, that “[c]enturies of intermarriage has rendered the two
groups physically indistinguishable”. [425] The UN media service noted:
“In Darfur, where the vast majority of people are Muslim and Arabicspeaking,
the distinction between ‘Arab’ and ‘African’ is more cultural than racial.” [426] This reality has also been confirmed by de Waal and
other anti-government activists. [427] Ryle has noted that Arabs and non-
Arabs “are generally physically indistinguishable”. [428] The New York
Times has exemplified contradictory reporting on this issue, with
articles on one hand by their columnist Nicholas Kristof alleging, for
example, that “black Africans have been driven from their homes by
lighter-skinned Arabs in the Janjaweed” [429] while also publishing subsequent articles such as “In Sudan, No Clear Difference Between
Arab and African”. [430] Even “African” Darfurian anti-government figures
such as Dr Eltigani Ateem Seisi contradict the dangerously lazy
shorthand of the New York Times. Speaking at a conference in Brussels
he stated with reference to “Arabs” and “Africans” in Darfur that “we all
look alike” and that one “can’t tell from the features if he is Arab or
African”. He added that he, an “African”, had a lighter skin than many
“Arabs”. [431] De Waal has also pointedly challenged the “Arab” versus “African”
stereotype, stating that “Characterizing the Darfur war as ‘Arabs’ versus
‘Africans’ obscures the reality. Darfur’s Arabs are black, indigenous,
African Muslims – just like Darfur’s non-Arabs.” [432] He has also said:
We will see that the story is not as simple as the conventional
rendering in the news, which depicts a conflict between ‘Arabs’ and
‘Africans.’ The Zaghawa…are certainly indigenous, black and
African: they share distant origins with the Berbers of Morocco and
other ancient Saharan peoples. But the name of the ‘Bedeyat’, the
Zaghawa’s close kin, should alert us to their true origins: pluralize in
the more traditional manner and we have ‘Bedeyiin’ or Bedouins.
Similarly, the Zaghawa’s adversaries in this war, the Darfurian Arabs,
are ‘Arabs’ in the ancient sense of ‘Bedouin,’ meaning desert
nomad…Darfurian Arabs, too, are indigenous, black, and African. In fact there are no discernible racial or religious differences between the two: all have lived there for centuries. [433]
A Policy of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur?
There has obviously been a vast displacement of civilians within Darfur,
especially amongst those communities from which the rebels have recruited and presumably sought other support. A sensationalist media
and human rights industry has claimed that the government has pursued
a policy of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. [434] The Sudanese junior foreign
minister Najeeb Alkhair Abdelwahab has stated with regard to claims of
ethnic cleansing in Darfur that: “The situation in Darfur is neither one of
ethnic cleansing nor genocide. It is primarily a clash over resources.” [435]
Médecins Sans Frontières has noted that “there is no systematic target –
targeting one ethnic group or another one”. The UN Under-Secretary-
General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, has also stated that the
term “ethnic cleansing” did not fit events in Darfur: “I think we have
more reports actually of a kind of scorched earth [policy] – and that
nobody has taken over….It’s complex, because some have said that it
doesn’t fit the legal definition of ethnic cleansing. The same tribes are
represented both among those who are cleansed and those who are
cleansing.” [436] Mr Egeland’s views have been echoed by key human
rights experts. Asma Jehangir, the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial
summary and arbitrary executions, for example, has said: “I wouldn’t
categorise as ethnic cleansing at the moment because that is not the
impression that I am getting. It could be an unintended purpose but the
numbers are staggering, the situation is terrible.” [437]
Allegations of ethnic cleansing have also been clearly contradicted by
Sudanese government actions. Far from wishing to see the displacement
of “African” Darfurian communities, the government has self-evidently
been very eager to see these communities returned to their homes. In the
Plan of Action signed on 5 August 2005, the Government committed
itself to signing an agreement with the International Organization for
Migration (IOM) to oversee and assist in the voluntary return of
internally displaced persons. The UN Secretary-General has noted with
regard to this agreement that “since the Management and Coordination Mechanism was established, progress has been made in reaching
definitions of appropriateness and voluntariness and establishing
standard operating procedures, and these definitions have been
practically implemented”. [438] This agreement was signed by the
Government, IOM and the United Nations on 21 August. In November
2004, Khartoum reported to the UN that 270,000 displaced people had
been returned to their places of origin. The Sudanese humanitarian
affairs minister, Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid, stated: “More than 270,000
people have voluntarily returned to their homes. This is a very good sign
and indicator that the situation in Darfur is improving.” [439] Jan Pronk, the
UN Special Envoy to Sudan, was said to be concerned because neither
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees nor the UN Organisation for
Migration had been consulted prior to the repatriation. While there may
well be some concern as to whether all the returns were voluntary,
Khartoum’s eagerness to return refugees to their place of origin is
manifest. The United Nations has noted government pressure on
displaced people to return home, and has undertaken profiling exercises
which “will inform appropriate and timely planning of interventions
when conditions for return are in place.” [440] Attempts to compare Darfur
to Kosovo or any other example of ethnic cleansing fail to explain why
it is that – unlike in Kosovo and other parts of the former Yugoslavia,
for example, where there were clear attempts by governments to
permanently exclude people from their homeland – in Darfur the
government is being criticised for trying to return people to where they
came from.
Allegations of a concerted, planned genocide or ethnic cleansing in
Darfur also jar with the fact that Khartoum has allowed 8,500 aid
workers, many several hundred of whom are foreigners, into the region.
It has also allowed dozens of foreign reporters into Darfur. These have included journalists from virtually every Western nation, and have
included reporters from the BBC, Reuters, The Times, The New York
Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Financial
Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Telegraph, The Sunday
Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, Sky, CNN, Time,
Knight-Ridder and The Economist. Several of these journalists have
spent several weeks, and some several months, in Darfur. Most
governments involved in a programme of genocide go out of their way
to prevent any outsiders, especially journalists, from roaming around the
area in question.
Footnotes |
 |
|
