“Crisis” or “Genocide” in Sudan?

“As Africa, at the start of a new century, struggles to make itself a success, resolving conflicts is at the top of its agenda. To find answers, the continent's leaders are sorting through deeply rooted cultural traditions, colonial-era legacies and the new demands of a globalized world, searching for African solutions to Africa's problems.

Nowhere is that struggle more evident than in Darfur, Africa's newest hot spot. The ugly conflict has turned into a test not just of the region's ancient conflict-resolution structures and of the United Nations' promise to end ethnic-fueled violence after Rwanda's genocide, but of the will of Africa's leaders, through the African Union, to police their problems.” From “Sudan’s Darfur crisis tests continent’s resolve,” Laurie Goering, Chicago Tribune at http://www.sudantribune.com/article_impr.php3?id_article=6367

For information about the country of Sudan, its geography, people and policies see the InfoPlease fact sheet, at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107996.html

Currently in Darfur…

Ø A peace deal signed January 9th 2005 between north and south in Sudan does not cover the ongoing crisis in this western region of Sudan. Events in Darfur are not directly related to the North-South war, but rebel groups in both areas have similar grievances against the government, and have made similar claims for access to wealth and power.
Ø In both regions, the government of Sudan has pursued similar (and devastating) counter-insurgency tactics against civilians that have, on more than one occasion, amounted to genocide.
Ø The government backed, Janjaweed are continuing their assault on rural Sudanese, burning villages, killing livestock and people and using the systematic rape of women and girls as a weapon of war.
Ø The bottom line is that realities in Darfur will not be changed in any way by the signing ceremony in Kenya, and up to 35,000 people will still die every month in Darfur as the genocide continues.
Ø The limited African Union force on the ground in Darfur (only 1,000 troops of a promised 4,000 strong force) remains completely inadequate and overwhelmed, and civilians in Darfur are continuously vulnerable to violent attacks, rapes, and to the ravages of the deteriorating humanitarian crisis.

For more details on the origins of crisis and those involved, see,
“How Can We Name the Darfur Crisis” by Mahmood Mamdani at: http://www.blackcommentator.com/109/109_darfur.html

For more on the human cost of crisis in Sudan see, “Darfur's Babies of Rape Are on Trial From Birth” by Lydia Polgreen at:
http://www.sudantribune.com/article_impr.php3?id_article=7984

And, “UN Agency Seeks to Protect Bitter Harvest of Darfur Conflict - Babies Born of Rape” at: http://allafrica.com/stories/200502140283.html

And, for information on what YOU can do to help, see the BET special Sudan site at: http://www.bet.com/News/tlscott_howtohelp.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished


Civil War and Peace


Ø Since independence in 1956, Sudanese has experienced only a decade of peace (1972-1983). Both before and after that period the Sudanese government was at war with the southern Sudanese people. Sudan has been run by successive Arab-centric regimes in Khartoum dominated by a small clique of northern communities, while groups from various regions elsewhere in the country have expressed increasing frustration about their marginalization, the lack of representative government, and their own lack of access to wealth and power.
Ø In 1983, African rebels took up arms against the government in Khartoum to demand greater autonomy, access to resources and to introduction of Islamic law across Sudan. The conflict that has raged since then has pitted Sudan’s mainly Arabized and Muslim-led government against African rebels in the south from communities practicing traditional African religions or Christianity.
Ø More than 2 million people have lost their lives through violence, disease and starvation in southern Sudan.
Ø This peace agreement does not cover the ongoing conflict in Darfur, western Sudan, where the Sudanese government continues to wage a campaign of genocide against civilians from three ethnic groups.
Ø This deal could bring peace and stability to southern Sudan for first time in a generation, and could allow human and economic development in an area devastated by conflict.
Ø If peace in southern Sudan is to be sustainable and meaningful, a well-equipped and robust international peace-keeping force is needed both to investigate reported violations of peace agreements, and to oversee the disarmament of the militias. There is also a need for a force on the ground that can deter any violations of the ceasefire, and that can swiftly and effectively respond to any such violations that might occur.


For more on the history of civil war in Sudan and the new peace agreement, see
“Africa Action Talking Points on Peace in Sudan,” at http://www.africaaction.org/newsroom/index.php?op=read&documentid=741&type=14



Defining Genocide

Ø The legal definition of GENOCIDE: The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Article II describes the two elements that constitute the crime of genocide:
o 1. the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such", and
o 2. the physical element which includes five types of violence described in sections [a] through [e] as follows:
§ [a] Killing members of the group; [b] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [c] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [d] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [e] Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Ø 400,000 people have been murdered in Darfur over the last two years. Over 2 million have been displaced from their homes, and without livestock or land to grow food, have little chance at survival without humanitarian aid.
Ø Focusing on the village of Furawiya in the northern part of West Darfur, PHR documented the full range of loss of livelihoods, including loss of community, economic structures, livestock, food production, wells and irrigation, farming capacity, and household structures. When this detail is applied to the estimated 700-2,000 villages destroyed in Darfur, the scale and cost of livelihood destruction is enormous. It is equitable to millions of US dollars.

For more on why conflict in Darfur fits the definition of genocide, see “Africa Action Talking Points on Genocide in Darfur” at http://www.africaaction.org/newsroom/index.php?op=read&documentid=634&type=14

And “In Darfur, PHR Team Finds Substantial Evidence of Intentional Destruction of Livelihoods; Urges UN to Support Compensation and Increased African Union Force”
At http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/release02162005.html

And, for analysis of the UN Commission of Inquiry report on the status of Sudan, see
“Darfur in the Security Council” at http://www.globalsolutions.org/programs/law_justice/icc/resources/Sudan%20Briefing%20Paper%20Feb%2002.pdf

Also, for more on the US claim of genocide, see “Politics: Pressure Grows to Send Darfur Killings to the Hague,” by Jim Lobe at: http://allafrica.com/stories/200502170883.html

We the People: Bridging the Great Divide

The “Great Divide?”
Taken from the PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll at: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/mandatepoll/Press01_18_05.pdf
Majorities of both parties polled agreed that on the following stances regarding US Foreign Policy in the second Bush term:
Make preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and the combating international terrorism the top priorities in US foreign policy
Strengthen the United Nations
Contribute US troops to UN peacekeeping missions
Participate in the International Criminal Court
Participate in the Land Mines Treaty
Only go to war with a government that is supporting terrorists if there is an imminent threat to the US or the UN Security Council approves
Use US military force to deal with humanitarian crises, especially to stop genocide
Do not use US military force to replace dictators with democratic governments
Do not use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack
Do not use torture to gain information in the war on terrorism
In the effort to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, be willing to sign a non-aggression pact and provide North Korea with more food aid
Do not use military force against North Korea unless the US has approval from the UN, US allies and South Korea
Be even handed when dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict
Contribute troops to peacekeeping in Afghanistan
Include minimum labor and environmental standards in trade agreements
Do not have subsidies for large farming businesses, but have them for small farmers

Groups and Organizations Bridging the Gap:

· The BothAnd Radio Initative
A joint initiative of The Mainstream Media Project and The Harvard Global Negotiation Project, the goal of the BothAnd Radio Initiative is to shift the national discourse from blame and partisanship towards creative problem-solving. BothAnd places spokespersons from across the political spectrum on the airwaves and provides training to guest experts, hosts, and others seeking to promote this new genre of public conversation. Instead of assuming either one side or the other is correct, BothAnd maintains that both one side and the other hold parts of the solution www.bothand.org
· Let’s Talk America
Let’s Talk America is a nationwide movement that brings Americans from all points on the political spectrum together in cafes, bookstores, churches and living rooms for lively, open-hearted dialogue to consider questions essential to the future of our democracy. Let’s Talk America is based on the “Conversation Cafes” which was founded in Seattle after 9/11 to create spaces for meaningful conversation about our thoughts, feelings and actions during these times. Let’s Talk America is a meeting ground where we can come together to listen, speak, ask and learn -- without being forced to agree, change or bite our tongues. www.LetsTalkAmerica.org, www.conversationcafe.org,
· Public Conversations Project
Over the past 14 years the Public Conversations Project has helped hundreds of people to engage in constructive conversations across the dividing lines of a range of hotly contested issues, including homosexuality and faith, the environment, abortion, and the Middle East. Participants have been attracted to dialogue for many reasons, including the promise of an alternative to bruising or frustrating exchanges they've experienced; the wish to avoid a costly protracted conflict; the desire to prevent the fracturing of valued coalitions; the wish to deescalate chronic animosity that erupted into a murderous attack. http://www.publicconversations.org
· Search for Common Ground USA
In the course of efforts to transform the way the world deals with conflict over the past 20 years, Search for Common Ground has discovered several underlying principles for dealing with conflict constructively. Finding common ground does not mean settling for the lowest common denominator, but generating the highest - not having two sides meet in the middle, but having them identify something together that they can aspire to and are willing to work towards. Finding common ground and taking a non-adversarial approach to social change leads to the most sustainable and most effective solutions, and brings along the largest sectors of society. http://www.sfcg.org/
· Americans for an Informed Democracy
Americans for Informed Democracy raises global awareness through town hall meetings on America's role in the world on more than 175 U.S. university campuses and in more than 10 countries. The Red, White, and Blue Coming Together is an initiative to unite America behind a common vision for our role in the world. After a bitter election season which focused attention on the divisions between “Red” and “Blue” America, this event series strives to begin the healing process by raising awareness about the hidden consensus that already exists in a number of key foreign policy areas and by facilitating constructive, non-partisan dialogue on more controversial issues. www.aidemocracy.org/