Sudan: Civilians Driven Into Camps, Then the Bush
WASHINGTON - Sudan’s government is seeking to dismantle displaced person camps in Darfur that house thousands of people ahead of the arrival of a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, according to a Darfuri physician and human rights advocate honoured here this week by the Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Memorial Centre for Human Rights.
“Protecting civilians is key to solving the situation in Darfur,” said Dr. Mohammed Ahmed Abdallah, who directs the Amel Centre for the Treatment & Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture, Darfur’s leading local human rights organisation, and also serves on the faculty of medicine at al-Fashir University.
Established in 1983, the RFK Human Rights Award recognises an individual each year “whose courageous activism is at the heart of the human rights movement and in the spirit of Robert F. Kennedy’s vision and legacy.”
Ahmed has coordinated efforts at multiple locations of the Amel Centre to treat torture victims in Darfur’s violent conflict, which erupted in 2003 after rebels from Darfur’s ethnic African majority initiated a revolt against Sudan’s predominantly Arab government. Since then, over 200,000 people have been killed in clashes between rebels, government forces, and the roaming, armed militias known as janjaweed.
An estimated 2.5 million people have also been driven from their homes. Oftentimes they end up in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, where basic services are made available by humanitarian groups.
In late October, however, the United Nations reported that the Sudanese government was forcibly evicting hundreds of families from the Otash camp, home to over 60,000 displaced persons, near the south Darfur capital of Nyala.
U.N. officials denounced the situation, which some rights groups have called a violation of international law.
“While the United Nations notes the [Sudanese] government’s concern about the security situation in the camps, it is imperative that any relocation be wholly voluntary, in agreement with the internally displaced,” said John Holmes, under-secretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator.
“Given that security forces were threatening the displaced with sticks and rubber hoses at Otash camp, the involuntary nature of this relocation is clear, and contrary to agreements with the government,” Holmes said in a statement late last month, referring to a “memorandum of understanding” signed in 2004 by the government of Sudan, the United Nations and the International Organisation on Migration.
Khartoum’s efforts to disperse the IDP camps date back to 2004, says Human Rights Watch (HRW). In November of that year, the government attempted to forcibly relocate residents of Kalma camp, the largest IDP camp in the Nyala area and home to 90,000 people.
When residents refused to leave, Khartoum exerted pressure on the population as well as on humanitarian groups, and in May 2005 it banned all commercial activity in the Kalma camp, including the import of goods from nearby Nyala, HRW reported.
Khartoum claims that its reasons for targeting the camps are related to security and sanitation concerns, but some experts view these events instead as evidence of a widespread policy to disperse Darfur’s displaced persons, whose numbers may be as high as one million.
“There is no reason to believe that the reasons [Khartoum] has provided are valid ones,” said HRW Darfur researcher Selena Brewer. “This is a way of gaining control over the population. They’ll be much less of a threat — politically, militarily, on every level — if they’re dispersed into small groups.”
U.N. officials also expressed serious concerns last week after the U.N.’s top humanitarian official, Wael al-Haj Ibrahim, was expelled from South Darfur under accusations by the regional government that he had committed unspecified rule violations.
According to some, al-Haj Ibrahim was targeted because he was too vocal in his opposition to Khartoum’s directives to dismantle the camps.
“The motive for al-Haj Ibrahim’s expulsion was his refusal to acquiesce in Khartoum’s policy of forced returns of displaced persons” to their villages, said Eric Reeves, a Smith College professor who has written extensively on the Darfur conflict.
The British-based Aegis Trust, a group that works to prevent genocide and has offices in Africa, said that al-Haj Ibrahim “was forced out essentially because he did his job so well”, reported the Associated Press.
In addition, members of the human rights community fear that ongoing delays in the deployment of joint U.N.-African Union peacekeeping forces will only exacerbate the IDP situation.
“The Sudanese government wants to get rid of these camps, which it sees as evidence against it, before the arrival of international peacekeepers,” the RFK Centre said.
Although the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1769 in August 2007 authorising joint peacekeeping forces, known as the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), the mission has stalled due to ongoing criticism from Khartoum about the troops’ country composition, said Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in a statement last week.
If Darfur’s displaced persons camps are dispersed and the population is forced to flee into the bush, the consequences could be devastating, experts warn.
“If these people are expelled from the IDP camps, they are going to die — either by starvation, dehydration, or malnutrition,” said Ahmed at a press conference here on Monday. “And the other thing is that the janjaweed will be waiting.”
Reports from the ground in Darfur are limited, but some have described a security situation that is very poor, and deteriorating. Travelers by road in Darfur face dozens of checkpoints and demands for bribes, some sponsored by the government and many that are not, Ahmed said, and U.N. aid groups are “handicapped” by looting of their trucks and supplies.
Furthermore, many of the estimated 200 to 300 displaced persons camps in Darfur are located in extremely rural areas, some accessible only by helicopter — making it difficult for humanitarian workers to reach the vulnerable populations should they be expelled from camps.
“The threat to civilians cannot be overstated” if the IDP camps continue to be dispersed, Reeves said.
© 2007 Inter Press Service
Why is the US government not doing anything about this situation? We surely have all the evidence we need to understand that genocide is taking place in the Sudan.
Is OIL more important? Are African lives worth less than Irish or Jewish lives?
There are instances when the American government & major institutions stood up to help people in situations like Sudan. Why not right now?
Under this current administration, their skin is not the right color; nor do they have any of the natural resources in which Washington has an interest. They are black and poor.
Sad and shameful for the so-called “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.”
I am very surprised why Common Dreams does not publish articles on the continuing genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Is it because the US is the cause of genocide there????
“A Tale Of Two Genocides,Congo And Darfur”
By Glen Ford
18 July, 2007
Black Agenda Report
“A human death toll that approaches the Nazi’s annihilation of Jews in World War Two unfolds without a whiff of complaint from the superpower. Possibly a quarter million people have lost their lives in Darfur, western Sudan, in ethnic conflict. The U.S. government screams its head off in denunciation of genocide, in this case. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as many as five million have died since 1994 in overlapping convulsions of ethnic and state-sponsored massacre. Not a word of reproach from Washington. A human death toll that approaches the Nazi’s annihilation of Jews in World War Two - an ongoing holocaust - unfolds without a whiff of complaint from the superpower.
“Why is mass death the cause of indignation and confrontation in Sudan, but exponentially more massive carnage in Congo unworthy of mention? The answer is simple: in Sudan, the U.S. has a geopolitical nemesis to confront: Arabs, and their Chinese business partners. In the Congo, it is U.S allies and European and American corporate interests that benefit from the slaughter. Therefore, despite five million skeletons lying in the ground, there is no call to arms from the American government. It is they who set the genocidal Congolese machine in motion.
“Active U.S. Passivity
“In 1994, Rwanda was on the brink. The Hutu majority, which had for a century been oppressed by Tutsi surrogates for European colonialists, feared that another massacre of their kin was imminent. There had been many massacres of Hutus, before, in Rwanda and neighboring Burundi, also under minority Tutsi control. Pent-up hysteria exploded in an orgy of violence that claimed the lives of as many as 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus that did not support the genocide.
The U.S. did nothing to interfere, because they had two actors in the game. Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni was now the Americans’ guy in central Africa. Tutsi Rwandan exiles, headed by Paul Kagame, were an integral part of Museveni’s army. As the genocide began, Kagame’s forces launched an offensive from Uganda into Rwanda. It did not halt the massacre of Tutsis, but succeeded in driving the disorganized Hutus into neighboring Congo. The Americans now had another player in the African game: the new head of the Rwandan Tutsi-dominated state, Paul Kagame. His forces then invaded eastern Congo, chasing the fleeing Hutus.
“All hell broke loose. President Mobutu Sese Seko, America’s man in the Congo, then called Zaire, was terminally ill. He fled and died in exile in 1997. The eastern Congo was now up for grabs, and everybody grabbed some. Eastern Congo is one of the most minerally rich places on Earth, an extractors’ paradise. According to the CIA’s “Factbook,” the DRC abounds with “cobalt, copper, niobium, tantalum, petroleum, industrial and gem diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, uranium, coal, hydropower, timber.” All of these resources are exploited by European and American corporations that maintain their own mercenary armies to guard the extraction fields. For generations they have run their patches of Congolese land like governments, with the support of France, Belgium, the United States and other powers. The so-called civil war effectively gave them full autonomy in the wake of Mobutu’s corrupt demise, as the power of the central government in Kinshasa, crumbled. Mass carnage raged around them, but did not interrupt the extraction process.
“Geopolitical Crimes
“In the thirteen years since Rwandan Tutsi Paul Kagame’s forces - surrogates for the U.S. puppet president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni - invaded the eastern Congo, possibly five million people have died. President Bill Clinton, the man who stood aside while the Rwandan genocide took place, then presided over a far bigger mass murder in Congo. He has apologized for only one. In a visit to Kigali, capital of Rwanda, Clinton said:
“We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred.”
“But what occurred is not over. The bloodshed spread rapidly to eastern Congo, unleashed by U.S. surrogate forces, and continues to this day. Paul Kagame, the Rwandan president, has served U.S. imperial ambitions well. He supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and continues to destabilize Congo with his forces in the eastern region. Multinational corporations, of course, operate their own airstrips and communications networks. Their patches of Congo proceed like business as usual, while the death toll mounts by millions among the people, who are overrun by militias of various ethnicities and Kagame’s Rwandan army.
The Congolese genocide is not part of the American political discussion. When Africa is mentioned at all, it is about Darfur. A quarter million people have died there, compared to five million in Congo. Both holocausts are crimes against humanity, but only the smaller one, Darfur, is a fit subject for inclusion in the U.S. political debate. During the June 3 CNN Democratic debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer demanded that the candidates “raise their hands” if they supported the imposition of a no-fly zone in Darfur - an act of war against the government in Khartoum according to international law. Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel declined to endorse the violation of Sudanese sovereignty. In the following Republican debate, the consensus was almost unanimous, except for Rep. Ron Paul: impose a no-fly regime over the western Sudan.
“Imperial Chess Game
“The Congressional Black Caucus follows the same script as Wolf Blitzer. Members have lobbied and demonstrated against the Sudanese regime, to the applause of the corporate press. But they have never said a word, as a body, about the hellacious carnage in Congo. It is a taboo subject, too close to “vital American interests.” But the Sudanese conflict is fair game, and so the Black Caucus joins in the general mob attack. They make common cause with imperial ambitions in the Horn of Africa, while ignoring the murder of millions in central Africa.
“The preferred narrative of Darfur fits nicely with that of the Israeli lobby in the United States. Although all the antagonists are Black Africans and Muslims, the aggressors are classified as “Arabs.” A regional inter-African, inter-Muslim conflict is made to appear as part of the “clash of civilizations” - the new Cold War. The proof is that the Chinese are partners with the Khartoum regime, having engaged in oil contracts. The evil Chinese menace threatens American interests, and it follows that any country that deals with the Chinese is involved in an anti-American conspiracy. If they are Arabs (although black as my shoe), then the narrative is complete. Arabs have collaborated with Chinese to kill Africans just as black as themselves. Let’s declare war on them, beginning with a no-fly zone that violates their sovereignty.
“The scenario is the same as Iraq: take control of their skies and the land beneath it, and bomb at will. Remove any semblance of government authority, under the guise of ending genocide. Extend the reach of the U.S. military’s paws in the Sahel region. The African Union has tried mightily to put an effective peace-keeping force on the ground in Darfur, but the United States and the Europeans refused to supply the logistical forces that are necessary; the C-130s to reinforce and supply the African troops. The Americans and Europeans held out until the African contingent was at the breaking point, and then forced through the UN Security Council a plan to place 26,000 U.S. and European-led soldiers on the ground. Another piece of Africa will pass into foreign hands.
“Darfur has been made into a stage-set of anti-Arab conflict, which perfectly suits the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. Congo, where far more people have died, remains a gargantuan killing field, uncovered by the corporate media and ignored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the array of Democratic presidential candidates. Genocide depends on who is doing the killing, apparently.”
Demerara {quote}: “There are instances when the American government & major institutions stood up to help people in situations like Sudan. Why not right now?”
Please enlighten us of when the U.S. gov’t stood up to help. It doesn’t count when the ‘help’ covered up the U.S. gov’t interference that caused the division and destruction in the first place. It aslo doesn’t count when the ‘help’ was given by one hand while ever greater plunder was taken away by the other.
I’d like to know of these instances when the US gov’t acted selflessly. Please - it would give me some much needed hope.
iowairish “Please enlighten us of when the U.S. gov’t stood up to help.”
The best example would be WWII.
They fought Nazi Germany which was busy in the Genocide of Jews and Slavic nations.
They fought Japan, which was busy killing ~ 16 millions people in Manchuria and china.
Corporate/political corruption and disrespect for human rights and international law is the cause of much death and misery around the world. The sad thing is that when nations with the power to stop the madness don’t like the results of their actions, they then send in troops to crush more people on top of the genocidal tragedy. The media would have us believe that the clash of civilizations is about culture and religion but the real clash of civilizations is about propertied mercenary backed elites vs the unpropertied non gun backed masses. This is the result of the hijacking of true representative government by powerful people who see the world as exploitable puzzle pieces and not as people with inherent god given rights. For those who say it’s in gods hands I say god gives us the power to act and the courage to stand against evil. To those who say it’s up to our leaders I say where have your leaders lead you. If we really want to be awakened, self-leading, and compassionate people then we can stop consuming from companies who’s largess is earned through state sanctioned murder. Let’s protest by stopping our accounts with companies who do business with killers. Just like governments that stop contracts with people who support terror, we citizens can stop doing business with companies who do business with tribal or dictator led murderers. I think then and only then will we get our governments attention. I mean what could our governments do, torture us into buying things we could live without.
Love and compassionate peace to all