UN Inaction Persists & Darfur Genocide Continues with Impunity

By Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman

January 27, 2008 — Is it a ZIONIST CONSPIRACY or GENOCIDE what has been happening in Darfur? This is a perpetual enquiry. The atrocities exercised against the people of Darfur are genocide. Genocide has taken place in Darfur. The recent developments by Professor George J. Andreopoulos of Department of Government, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York Author of Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions and others) outlines the criteria for establishing that genocide has happened:

During the first 50 years after its ratification, the genocide convention lacked effective enforcement mechanisms, despite the fact that it contained provisions to enable the UN to enforce it. Although the convention stipulated that persons charged with genocide should be tried before an international penal tribunal or a tribunal of the state in which the crime was committed, no permanent penal tribunal existed at the international level until the early 21st century, and prosecutions at the domestic level were unlikely except in the rare case where a genocidal regime was overthrown and its officials were prosecuted by a successor regime.

The genocide convention was first invoked before an international tribunal in 1993, when the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina argued before the International Court of Justice that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was in breach of its obligations under the convention. During the 1990s the international community became more vigorous in prosecuting alleged crimes of genocide. The UN Security Council established separate tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), both of which contributed to the clarification of the material elements of the offense of genocide as well as of the criteria establishing individual criminal responsibility for its commission. The Rwandan tribunal, for example, stated that genocide included “subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement.” It also ruled that “rape and sexual violence constitute genocide…as long as they were committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group, targeted as such”—as was the case in the Rwandan conflict, where the government, dominated by the Hutu ethnic group, organized the mass rape of ethnic Tutsi women by HIV-infected men. On the critical issue of intent, the Yugoslav tribunal also ruled that genocidal intent can be manifest in the persecution of small groups of people as well as large ones. According to the tribunal, such intent may consist of desiring the extermination of a very large number of the members of the group, in which case it would constitute an intention to destroy a group en masse. However, it may also consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected for the impact that their disappearance would have upon the survival of the group as such. This would then constitute an intention to destroy the group “selectively. On July 1, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in 1998 in Rome by some 120 countries, entered into force. The ICC’s jurisdiction includes the crime of genocide, and the statute adopts the same definition of the offense as found in the genocide convention. The establishment of the ICC—though without the participation of the United States, China, and Russia—was another indication of a growing international consensus in favour of vigorous and concerted efforts to suppress and punish the crime of genocide.

Ethnic Cleansing Ethnic Cleansing is the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

The term ethnic cleansing, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnicko ciscenje, was widely employed in the 1990s (though the term first appeared earlier) to describe the brutal treatment of various civilian groups in the conflicts that erupted upon the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These groups included Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia, and ethnic Albanians and later Serbs in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The term also has been attached to the treatment by Indonesian militants of the people of East Timor, many of whom were killed or forced to abandon their homes after citizens there voted in favour of independence in 1999, and to the plight of Chechens who fled Grozny and other areas of Chechnya following Russian military operations against Chechen separatists during the 1990s. According to a report issued by the United Nations (UN) secretary-general, the frequent occurrence of ethnic cleansing in the 1990s was attributable to the nature of contemporary armed conflicts, in which civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure are not simply by-products of war, but the consequence of the deliberate targeting of non-combatants…. [I]n many conflicts, belligerents target civilians in order to expel or eradicate segments of the population, or for the purpose of hastening military surrender.

Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide.

Another major controversy concerns the question of whether or not ethnic cleansing originated in the 20th century. Some scholars have pointed to the forced resettlement of millions of people by the Assyrians in the 9th and 7th centuries BC as perhaps the first cases of ethnic cleansing. Among other examples cited are the mass execution of Danes by the English in 1002, attempts by the Czechs to rid their territories of Germans in the Middle Ages, the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 15th century, and the forced displacement of Native Americans by white settlers in North America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Others argue that ethnic cleansing, unlike earlier acts of forced resettlement, is the result of certain uniquely 20th-century developments, such as the rise of powerful nation-states fuelled by nationalist and pseudoscientific racist ideologies in conjunction with the spread of advanced technology and communications. Examples of ethnic cleansing understood in this sense include the Armenian massacres by the Turks in 1915–16, the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews in the 1930s and ’40s, the expulsion of Germans from Polish and Czechoslovak territory after World War II, the Soviet Union’s deportation of certain ethnic minorities from the Caucasus and Crimea during the 1940s, and the forced migrations and mass killings in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s. In many of these campaigns, women were targeted for particularly brutal treatment—including systematic rape and enslavement—in part because they were viewed by perpetrators as the “carriers,” biologically and culturally, of the next generation of their nations. Because many men in victimized populations left their families and communities to join resistance groups once violence began, women and children were often defenceless.

The precise legal definition of ethnic cleansing has been the subject of intense scrutiny within various international bodies, including the UN, the two ad hoc international tribunals created in the 1990s to prosecute violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY] and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR], respectively), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which began sittings in 2002. In 1992, in reference to the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly declared ethnic cleansing to be “a form of genocide,” and in the following year the Security Council, citing widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, established a tribunal to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing. In its examination of the capture of the town of Kozarac by Bosnian Serbs, the ICTY described the ethnic cleansing that took place there as the process of rounding up and driving “out of the area on foot the entire non-Serb population.” In a subsequent case, the tribunal recognized similarities between acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, noting that both involve the targeting of individuals because of their membership in an ethnic group. The significant difference between the two remains, however: whereas ethnic cleansing aims to force the flight of a particular group, genocide targets the group for physical destruction.

The establishment of the ICC reinforced the links between ethnic cleansing and other offenses such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In its finalized text on the elements of the crimes in the court’s jurisdiction, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court made clear that ethnic cleansing could constitute all three offenses within the ICC’s jurisdiction. Genocide, for example, was defined as an act that may include the systematic expulsion of individuals from their homes; the threat of force or coercion to effect the transfer of a targeted group of persons was recognized as an element of crimes against humanity; and the “unlawful deportation and transfer,” as well as the displacement, of civilians were recognized as elements of war crimes.

Despite continuing controversies over its definition, the concept of ethnic cleansing has become firmly anchored within international law. It remains to be seen how mechanisms to prevent and deal with ethnic cleansing will develop and be implemented.

Additional Reading Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (2001), argues that ethnic cleansing is primarily a 20th-century phenomenon; Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, Ethnic Cleansing (1996, reissued 1999), takes the contrary view. The position of the United Nations is presented in Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (September 1999), and Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (March 2001). The elements of the crimes included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are described in Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, part 2 (2001).

Eric Reeves (SudanTribune Tuesday 1 January 2008: What Alternative to UNAMID Will Provide Security for Darfur?) said out of his frustration on the inaction of the International Community in deploying a robust peacekeeping force in Darfur for the protection of the civilians: “Laurie Nathan, an advisor to the African Union during the ill-fated Abuja peace talks, has put the matter with such force and clarity that it seems important to repeat his largest conclusion:

“The UN and the AU insist there is no military solution to the Darfur crisis. They contend that any solution has to be political, in the form of a negotiated settlement. At the very least, the long anticipated deployment of a peacekeeping force requires a ceasefire agreement so that there is a peace to be kept.”

“While this argument might be correct in principle, it is tragically wrong in practice. A negotiated settlement for Darfur is out of reach. In the absence of clear political agreement, there are only two strategies that hold any prospect of providing relief to the people of Darfur: a robust peace operation that vigorously provides protection to civilians, and concrete pressure on Khartoum to abstain from violence.”

Professor Reeves continues: “How do we answer the question posed by Nathan and Muggah? Do the UN and its member states, along with the AU, “have the stomach to pursue” the required strategies? and on an urgent basis? Sadly, the Darfur genocide, in its various forms, has required robust responses for so long that there is apparently little left that can add to a sense of urgency. If more than 2.6 million displaced persons, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and tens of thousands of rapes of women and girls cannot create the international will to act, what can? If previous large-scale ethnically-targeted destruction and slaughter have not moved us, how can current human destruction---less violent, but savagely deliberate---move us now? Perhaps we must simply accept that there is no catalyst for any action other than more vigorously unctuous hand-wringing. But it must be clearly understood that in the absence of urgent, robust measures, cataclysmic human destruction becomes inevitable.”

“It is not in the interests of Sudan, Africa or the world “for us all to stand by and see genocide being developed in Darfur.” This statement was attributed to former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Juan Mendez noted that the Sudanese government “relies on the disunity in the Security Council to avoid the imposition of sanctions.” Ernest Harsch reported in Africa Renewal, Vol.20 #3 (October 2006), “on 17 September, a day of solidarity with the people of Darfur brought protesters into the streets in locations around the world. In London demonstrators rallied outside the Sudanese Embassy, while Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders delivered a plea and said prayers outside the residence of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people rallied in New York City. In Rwanda, survivors of the 1994 genocide called for action to halt the Darfur crisis, while other events were held across Africa, from Dakar to Sudan’s Juba Mountains. President George W. Bush speaking at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on April 18, 2007 stated “All of the people in this room and people in this country have a vital role to play. Everyone ought to raise their voice. We ought to continue to demand that the genocide in Sudan be stopped.” He added “No one who sees these pictures can doubt that genocide is the only word for what is happening in Darfur — and that we have a moral obligation to stop it. Unfortunately, these agreements have been routinely violated. Sudan’s government has moved arms to Darfur, conducted bombing raids on villages, they’ve used military vehicles and aircraft that are painted white — which makes them look like those deployed by humanitarian agencies and peacekeeping forces. Just this week, Sudan’s government reached an agreement with the United Nations to allow 3,000 U.N. troops and their equipment into the country to support the AU force. The world has heard these promises from Sudan before. President Bashir’s record has been to promise cooperation while finding new ways to subvert and obstruct the U.N.’s efforts to bring peace to his country. The time for promises is over — President Bashir must act. During my tour of the Darfur exhibits this morning, I was shown a photo of a one-year-old girl who had been shot as her mother fled the Janjaweed. Although the mother had tried to protect her baby, it was to no avail. When the photo was taken, an observer nearby began to shout: "This is what they do! This is what happens here! Now you know! Now you see! Thanks to the efforts of people in this room, the world knows and the world sees. And now the world must act.”"

It has been reported that the Government of Sudan (GOS) instead of stopping the ongoing genocide and the killing in Darfur, it was shamelessly asking the Rwandan National Party (RNP) to build up ties with its National Congress Genocidal Party (NCGP). What a paradox and ironic setting. The intentions of the GoS in this act are clear. It aims at blunting the images of its genocidal acts against the people of Darfur. This is a Defense “Mental” Mechanism referred to as Reaction Formation, a psychological strategy brought into play by individuals, groups and even nations to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. A defense mechanism in psychodynamic theory is the process by which we protect ourselves from awareness of our undesired and feared impulses.The visit to Rwanda by the Master Génocidaires is also a type of behaviour commonly observed by Criminologists and Forensic Medicine Specialists in which the offender of a crime such as murder tends to return to the site where he/she committed the crime or disposed the victim’s corpse and roam about to uncover what is happening!

The former apostle and a disciple to Hassan Abdullah al –Turabi, who changed allegiance of his godfather, Mustafa Osman Ismail, presidential (Rasputin) or advisor (De facto foreign affairs) to Field Marshal Omer Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir, has visited Kigali, Rwanda, recently. He is reported to have met with the officials to enhance Cooperation between their ruling parties. It was learned that the two parties have expressed appreciation over developed relations. This happens when the Government of Sudan [GOS] stepped up its military presence in Darfur and intensified its attacks on civilians supported by the air force. Moreover, the visit was at a time when more alarm and concern is being expressed by governments around the world over the deteriorating situation in the Darfur region of western Sudan. One would have thought the Rwandan officials rather abhor these senseless acts and regret the violence that violates and undermines the ceasefire agreements with resultant loss of life in Darfur. Rwanda in which genocide had claimed an estimated 800,000 lives in 1994 the officials there are not expected to support the GOS in the aftermath of the Darfur genocide and mass atrocities. However, it may not be terribly surprising given the earlier visit Omer al-Bashir made on the 10th June 2005 to Rwanda. That visit was reported in the media, at the time, under the banner: Genocidal Dictator Commemorates Genocide. On June the 10th 2005 Sudanese Dictator Omar Bashir visited the Kigali Memorial Centre in Rwanda, during an African economic summit being held in the capital. He was accompanied by Mustafa Osman Ismail, the then his Foreign Minister, together with other officials. Bashir, whose government is presiding over an ongoing genocide against the people of Darfur that credible independent estimates indicate has already claimed the lives of 200,000 – 400,000 people, viewed a memorial to the hundreds of thousands of children killed in the 1994 genocide, and laid a wreath on mass graves containing the remains of 250,000 victims of the genocide killed in Kigali alone. “We followed closely the painful events of 1994,” Omer al-Bashir stated during his visit. “We are very glad to see that the Rwandan people have overcome this tragedy. We hope that in the future the Rwandan people will reconcile and live in peace and stability.” Omar al-Bashir who had the dubious distinction of being one of Parade Magazine’s "10 worst Dictators" in 2006, seems to be displaying the Defence Mechanism of PROJECTION in which the attribution of his undesired impulses onto another. Thus, he is denouncing the painful events of 1994 caused by the Hutus against the Tutsis. This is similar to the popular parable that “The killer attending the funeral of his victim!” Genocidal National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) in Khartoum should not have wooed ties with and sought the custom of the genocide survivors in Rwanda in the first place: Beggar Belief! It is incumbent on President Omer Ahmed al-Bashir to protect the survivors and end the genocide instead of escalating the fighting in the region of Darfur. However, it is no coincidence that Rwanda’s current government was quick to send its soldiers. They understand more than anyone about the need to protect in these situations.

The world has heard these promises from Sudan before. President Bashir’s record has been to promise cooperation while finding new ways to subvert and obstruct the U.N.’s efforts to bring peace to his country. The time for promises is over. Will the President Omer al-Bashir act this time and to stop the genocide and the mass annihilation in Darfur? That is the Sixty Four Dollar Question that defies the answer. We may reiterate, sadly, Professor Reeves’ sentiments “Perhaps we must simply accept that there is no catalyst for any action other than more vigorously unctuous hand-wringing. But it must be clearly understood that in the absence of urgent, robust measures, cataclysmic human destruction becomes inevitable.”

Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman is the Deputy Chairman of the General Congress for Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). He can be reached at mahmoud.abaker@gmail.com