{"article":{"id":144641,"heading":"Mis-portraying Conflict in Dar Fur and its Usages","author":"Isma'il Kamal","created":"2006-01-17 22:56:46","modified":"2013-11-11 00:37:35","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:37:35","article":"

Mis-portraying Conflict in Dar Fur and its Usages:

“Divestment from Sudan” as “Investment in Israel,” as an Example

January 3, 2006.

Isma’il Kamal*

The events that have unfolded in Sudan’s western region of Dar Fur in the past three years are indeed tragic. They shall remain a deep scar in the hearts and minds of many for years to come. But describing this tragedy as “genocide” does deserve to be questioned. The lost of innocent lives, irrespective of numbers, is certainly a matter to be condemned, and it that sense, it does not matter what we call it, as all parties involved should be held accountable. But proposed solutions and actions require a clear understanding of the issue at hand in all of its dimensions. I do not wish here to go into the details of the Dar Fur crisis. That is a matter for another article. But it is the popularized “narrative” of the Dar Fur crisis and its usages I wish to question.

Not unlike analyses of Rwanda in 1994, the common analysis of the Dar Fur issue “explains” it simply in terms of racial and tribal animosities, therefore, tainting the conflict with a sense of “inherent barbarism” and hopelessness. The actors here are “evil\/Arabs” against “victim\/Africans”; an imagery that resonates well in Western minds. This “narrative” ignores political, economic, environmental, regional and global factors contributing to, and at heart of, the crisis. These factors include, but are not limited to, divisions within Sudan’s ruling party, the National Congress; economic underdevelopment and marginalization; desertification and the struggle over water resources; and the roles of Eritrea, Chad and the US. It is this particular “narrative,” Arabs against black Africans, however, that has enabled the mobilization of thousands in the West around Dar Fur. In some respects, it is similar to that “narrative” of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine as a “thousand years old” conflict between the “Children of Ishmael” and the “Children of Israel”; hence, senseless, childish and hopeless, in need of “parental” guidance and interference.

The Dar Fur issue in the US has especially gained momentum. Activists and US officials have insisted on describing the Dar Fur crisis as “genocide,” thus contradicting UN (1), EU (2) and AU (3) investigative reports. While these reports have recognized the prevalence of wide spread abuses and atrocities, they have rejected the existence of a deliberate and systematic targeting of a specific group; an important component of the term “genocide.” But why do groups in the US insist on the term? The term “genocide” not only “hypes up” perceptions of the crisis, but also, demands responses from the US government and the UN. Some have remarked that interest in Dar Fur partly lies in liberals’ attempt to “make up” for Rwanda. Former US ambassador to the UN, John Danforth, remarked in a BBC interview that the description of the Dar Fur crisis as genocide was done by the US government for “internal consumption,” to please the Christian right in an election year (4). What is also noticeable is the heavy involvement of various American Jewish organizations in the (anti-) Sudan campaign. On July 18, 2005, a “Call to Action on Darfur” was made by several Jewish organizations “as a way to highlight the importance of this issue to all Jews, to focus energies from the Jewish community against this genocide, and to increase Jewish communal involvement in this effort.” (5) In essence, “Bush’s opportunity to adopt an election-season cause [in 2004] that can appeal simultaneously to fundamentalist Christians, the National association for the Advancement of Coloured People, multilateralist liberals and the altruistic “left”… [was]…too tempting to pass up.” (6) But the “Arab bashing” that has accompanied the (anti-) Sudan campaign, as The Guardian’s journalist Jonathan Steele has described in his October 7, 2005 article “Darfur wasn’t Genocide and Sudan is not a Terrorist State,” raises legitimate questions regarding alternative motives and agendas (7).

One of the tools of the (anti-) Sudan campaign has been to call for “divestment” from companies dealing with Sudan. Some of these divestment calls have already succeeded, including at Harvard and Stanford Universities. It took student activists at Stanford University only three months of organizing to have the university pass a “divestment from Sudan” resolution (8). The other divestment campaign, “divestment from Israel,” however, has not been able to generate the same degree of success. In March, 2005, for example, the University of Michigan’s Student Assembly voted against divestment from Israel. Opponents of “divestment from Israel” there argued that Israel had been singled out for condemnation (9). Considering the popularized Dar Fur “narrative,” it may appear, thus, that “Arab” crimes are more deserving of “punishment” than Israeli ones. Ironically, some within the “divestment from Israel” campaign appear to support “divestment from Sudan.” An argument has been made that “divestment from Sudan” would provide a “precedence” to strengthen their cause.

But let us look at the recent proposal presented to the regents of the University of California, calling for divestment from Sudan, and to be voted on January 17-18, 2006, at UC San Diego. The proposal contains a precarious clause: “a policy of divestment from a foreign government shall be adopted by the University only when the United States government declares that a foreign regime is committing acts of genocide.” (10) What this proposal consequently does is ignore the findings of many other international bodies and leaves it solely up to the US government to be the “moral compass” of the public. Given the recent “fumbles” of US policy makers (WMDs, war in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, domestic spying, etc…) one has to seriously put this clause to question. But even further, this clause would make it nearly impossible for the “divestment from Israel” campaign to succeed at the University of California, since it is unlikely that the US Government would ever describe abusive Israeli governmental practices as “genocidal.” In fact, this clause would have made it impossible for the University of California to divest from Apartheid South African in the 1980s!

To reiterate, critique of the popularized “narrative” of Dar Fur and its usages is not to belittle the seriousness of what is indeed a horrible tragedy. But Dar Fur apparently has also become a source of “political opportunism” for several interested groups. Continues calls to deny the African Union leadership in this crisis by American activists and officials should be viewed as attempts to remove Sudan from its “African circle,” and pave the way for American intervention. But the success of the (anti-) Sudan campaign also lies in the inability of many Arab and Muslim activists and intellectuals to maintain Afro-Arab dialogue and solidarity, once called for by the likes of Malcolm X. Such a dialogue and solidarity could provide for fresh meanings and articulations of “Pan Africanism” and “Arabism,” clearly needed today. In addition, Sudan appears to have been removed by some from its “Arab and Muslim circles.” Failure to place Sudan in the greater framework of Arab and Muslim political conciseness is indicative of a failure to comprehend the ways interested groups, such as Christian fundamentalists and Zionists, take to action. Palestinian thinker, Muneer Shafeeq has commented “what is occurring in Dar Fur in Sudan, [including] targeting Sudan’s unity and sovereignty…cannot be disconnected from what has occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what is occurring in…Palestine.” (11) A point unfortunately missed by many.

* Isma’il Kamal is studying History and International Relations at the University of California, Davis.

Notes:

(1)\tUnited Nations, September 18, 2004, “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General.”

http:\/\/www.un.org\/News\/dh\/sudan\/com_inq_darfur.pdf<\/a>

(2) “Sudan massacres not genocide, says EU.” Guardian Unlimited, August 10, 2004.

http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/sudan\/story\/0<\/a>,14658,1279835,00.html

(3) Peter Beaumont, “US ‘hyping’ Darfur genocide fears,” The Observer, October 3, 2004.

http:\/\/observer.guardian.co.uk\/international\/story\/0<\/a>,,1318628,00.html

(4) Anne Penketh, “White House described Darfur as ‘genocide’ to please Christian Right,” The Independent Online Edition, July 2, 2005.

http:\/\/news.independent.co.uk\/world\/africa\/article296269.ece<\/a>

(5) American Jewish World Service, July 18, 2005. “Hundreds of Jewish Groups Sign on to “Call to Action on Darfur.”

http:\/\/ajws.org\/index.cfm?section_id=8&sub_section_id=12&page_id=420<\/a>

(6) Peter Hallward, “Enough Imperial Crusades,” Guardian Unlimited,

August 18, 2004.

http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/comment\/story\/0<\/a>,3604,1285260,00.html

(7) Jonathan Steele, “Darfur wasn’t Genocide and Sudan is not a Terrorist State,” Guardian Unlimited, October 7, 2005.

http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/Columnists\/Column\/0<\/a>,5673,1586994,00.html

(8) Stanford Report, June 9, 2005, “University to divest from four companies connected to Sudan.”

http:\/\/news-service.stanford.edu\/news\/2005\/june15\/divest-060905.html<\/a>

(9) Jeremy Davidson, “MSA votes against divestment,” The Michigan Daily, March 16, 2005. http:\/\/www.michigandaily.com\/vnews\/display.v\/ART\/2005\/03\/16\/423817d1226d7?in_archive=1<\/a>

(10) University of California Regents, November 14, 2005, “Request for a thorough presentation on the divestment of the university holdings in four foreign companies engaged in substantial business in Sudan and thereby assisting the Government of Sudan in its genocidal campaign in Western Darfur,”

http:\/\/www.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regents\/regmeet\/nov05\/re63.pdf<\/a>

(11) Muneer Shafiq, “Al-tadamun ma’ al-Sudan wa hal al-mushkil al-insani,” Al-Shaab, August 13, 2005, (in Arabic).

http:\/\/www.alshaab.com\/2004\/13-08-2004\/moneer.htm<\/a>

<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"The events of Dar Fur are tragic; but some of the activism arround it is not without its own agenda.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2006\/01\/144641.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}