Sudan Tribune, Sudan
Jan 28 2008
UN inaction persistsa and Darfur crimes too
Monday 28 January 2008 04:30.
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 [email protected]
http://www.sudantribune. com/spip.php?article25727
From: Baghdasarian