Posted on 10/16/2004 9:57:08 PM PDT by Lorianne
Citing international aid workers, an October 3 article in the British Observer newspaper challenges the US government’s characterization of the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan as “genocide.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in testimony last month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared that “genocide has been committed in Darfur...and that genocide may still be continuing.” Powell made his speech after the US Congress had unanimously adopted a resolution labelling the events in Darfur as genocide.
But in the Observer article, headlined “US ‘hyping’ Darfur genocide fear,” Peter Beaumont reports allegations made by international aid workers in Sudan that “American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials....Washington’s desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports.”
Beaumont draws attention to reports by the US government’s aid agency, USAID, warning “between 350,000 and a million people could die in Darfur by the end of the year.” He continues, “Other officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have accused the Sudanese government of presiding over a ‘genocide’ that could rival those in Bosnia and Rwanda.”
He then writes, “Concern about USAID’s role as an honest broker in Darfur have 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.’ “
According to Beaumont, eyewitness reports have “comprehensively challenged” the US government’s estimation of the situation in Darfur. The nutritional survey of the region, by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), makes clear that “although there are still high levels of malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being brought under control.”
One person involved in the WFP survey told Beaumont, “It’s not disastrous, although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.”
An aid worker told the reporter, “I’ve been to a number of camps during my time here, and if you want to find death, you have to go looking for it. It’s easy to find very sick and under-nourished children at the therapeutic feeding centres, but that’s the same wherever you go in Africa.”
Another aid worker commented, “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.’ “
Beaumont continues: “While none of the aid workers and officials interviewed by the Observer denied there was a crisis in Darfur—or that killings, rape and a large-scale displacement of population had taken place—many were puzzled that it had become the focus of such hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo.”
This is an important question, which was addressed in the recent WSWS article: “Sudan: why Powell calls Darfur violence ‘genocide’”.
The article stated that Colin Powell’s designation of “genocide” in Darfur was not motivated by humanitarian concern for the plight of the million displaced people of Darfur. Rather, the choice of that highly charged term signalled “an escalation in American imperialism’s efforts to establish itself as the controlling power in North Africa and throughout the continent.” US interest in northern Africa, which has substantial oil reserves, has grown along with its concern over finite oil resources and social and political instability in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf sheikdoms.
See Also: Sudan: why Powell calls Darfur violence "genocide" [20 September 2004] An exchange on the crisis in Sudan’s western Darfur region [30 August 2004] Humanitarian crisis in Sudan used as cover for neo-colonial ambitions [28 July 2004]
Personally, I don't agree with Powell that the situation in Darfur meets the definition of "genocide" (and the UN won't classify it as genocide either), but there is no doubt that many are being killed, raped and persecuted.
However, either way, and no matter how bad it gets for those poor people, its all our fault. It's always all our fault.
Basically, the US has left the entire subject in the hands of the UN. This was entirely intentional. And day by day...hundreds die. There will be little if any action by the UN...or France...or Germany. And at some point in the spring, the UN will declare it a major emergency and hint that America should come to the rescue. And we won't. We'll let the UN know that we aren't the world's policemen...and they need to get real about their purpose.
And its the same way in Haiti. If you watch events unfolding there over the past month...the UN is totally screwing up the situation there as well. My guess is that the adminstration is calculating that the UN will become a media focus event by spring...and people will evaluate if its capable of making rational decisions as needed. You see the same problem with the Iranian nuclear situation. Iran will have a arsenal of 100 nukes before the UN can ever get real about the threat. Even the EU is acting like a deer in the headlights of the oncoming threat. They will be within range of the nukes...and the only protection is going to the US star wars shield...which Bush will demand that they come out in public and admit they screwed up before he puts them under the shield.
Quote Lorianne: "Personally, I don't agree with Powell that the situation in Darfur meets the definition of "genocide" (and the UN won't classify it as genocide either)"
And the UN's opinion is worth what precisely?????
My Brother In Law (M.D.) is over there right now. He previously served in Afganistan (twice) always as a civilian.
He says the news reports are actually under-reporting the actual situation. (Too busy with american elections).
Entire villages here one day, and nothing but bodies the next. - All males and children. Women are herded off to slavery. Muslim (the religion of Peace) gangs some in decrepid jeeps, some on horseback, ride in, machine gun everybody in sight - throw bodies in wells so they can't be used, and burn all the buildings.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I guess these commies don't get upset at 50,000 -- 60,000 people when they have a history of killing people in the 100s of MILLIONS!
Oh well then there is NO problem so forget about them.
So the obvious answer is to call it something else.
Either that or wait till they're all dead before using the "g word" as we did in Rwanda.
You're right, I'm not there now. But I have been there and I know the history of the region and I'm not convinced what is going on is "genocide". I believe it is an escalation of the same brutal civil war that has been waged in Sudan for over 20 years.
All killing is not genocide, though it makes little difference to the people who are dying and suffering, which is not in dispute that they are.
It's hard to know who to believe, but from what I've read, and from my experience in the region, I don't think the killing meets the definition of genocide. Not that the UN would do a damn thing if it did.
I didn't say that. You're projecting.
Yeah that quote got to me too. The thing is Powell didn't say "we're not going to do anything". He was trying to get the UN to do something or to declare it genocide so the US could do something.
We should just scrap the UN and do whatever we want. Help if we feel like it, don't if we don't. Powell was going through the proper UN channels, and it still didn't help. The UN won't act until the crisis is over and everyone is dead.
I'm beginning to think that the UN is perhaps the most dysfunctional and corrupt organization in the world today.
You're right. I apologize. I got your post mixed up with the post by konaice.
Its not just darfur, it is the entire southern part of the Sudan and its been going on for decades. The Arabic Muslims are trying to wipe out the mostly "christian" (in a loose sense) blacks.
how about a murderous, rampaging, deadly attempt to comit genocide???
GENEVA, Switzerland (CNN) -- The World Health Organization says that up to 70,000 refugees have died in Sudan's Darfur region since March 1, 2004 due to various causes, including diseases and malnutrition.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1247662/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.