Human Rights: Criminal silence on Darfur

Last updated on: May 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm by Rafia Zakaria

Human Rights: Criminal silence on Darfur 2007-05-15T14:17:00-04:00 Rafia Zakaria

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pray for me

The world’s moral anger is aroused by the clear-cut ethical dimensions of the conflict. There is, indeed, little confusion about who the good and the bad guys are.

When the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on May 5, 2005, there were high hopes that it would put an end to the violence in western Sudan. Two years later, the death toll in Darfur has topped over 300,000 people while another 2.5 million have been displaced into neighbouring Chad because of the violence.

The perpetuation of the conflict in Darfur illustrates several realities about the sorry state of trans-national organisations like the United Nations and their ability to provide respite in conflicts where governments turn against their own people.

A recent report issued by Amnesty International exposes some of these manipulations. When the UN Security Council imposed the arms embargo on Darfur in 2004, it applied the embargo only to non-state actors. Despite the fact that there was ample evidence that it was the Sudanese government which was perpetuating these attacks on its people, the passed resolution continued to allow arms to be shipped to the government.

Since the imposition of the arms embargo the Sudanese government has imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition and $57 million worth of aircraft equipment from the People’s Republic of China. Furthermore in 2005, it imported $27 million worth of aircraft and helicopter equipment from the Russian Federation. Smaller quantities of small arms and other weapons were exported to Sudan from Belarus and Iran.

The Amnesty report further details how these weapons were put to use by the Sudanese government. According to the AI report backed by photographs, military helicopter gunships were used in attacks on civilians in Darfur by the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed militia. In November 2006, military helicopters bombed villagers from the air while Janjaweed attacked from the ground. Since January 2007, Chinese jets owned by the Sudanese government have been seen in areas around Darfur and western Sudan and also been used in attacks on areas purported to belong to the rebel militias.

The dimensions of the Darfur conflict and the successful ability of the Sudanese government to manipulate the ambiguity of its connections with militias like the Janjaweed is indicative of the larger inability of the international community to deal with weak or failed states. The international system, built as it is on the nation-state as its primary unit, is at a loss when it comes to dealing with governments that use militias to accomplish their nefarious purposes. If the Sudanese or any other government in a weak state wants to do something nasty, it is far easier to subcontract its dirty deeds to a “militia” rather than take it on itself.

When the acts in question are as egregious as genocide, it becomes easy for a government to shift blame from itself to the militias and thus elude military sanctions from the UN. For weak governments seeking to subjugate sections of their own population, the message from Sudan certainly seems to be: find a militia to do your dirty work.

Another crucial question posed by the Darfur conflict is the now familiar query of why the international community, knowing full well the dimensions of the conflict, allows such a massive humanitarian crisis to persist? Why haven’t China and Russia come under more criticism for supplying arms that are essentially fuelling genocide? The answer lies in the same fact that allows the Sudanese government to evade international responsibility. When dominant superpowers like the United States attack smaller, weaker countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the David vs. Goliath, favourite vs. underdog dimension of the conflict attracts everyone’s attention. The world’s moral anger is aroused by the clear-cut ethical dimensions of the conflict. There is, indeed, little confusion about who the good and the bad guys are. Despite vast political differences, political communities as diverse as Venezuela and India condemn the atrocities and news media around the world focus their attention on the cruel superpower guilty of committing them.

Darfur is a different matter. When a Government turns against its own people, the lines of moral outrage are far more difficult to draw for a world community which has little patience with complicated stories. Few know or care to know, how and why the Sudanese government would like to exterminate the people of Darfur? However evil and villainous its actions, the government doesn’t fulfil the world’s simplistic expectations of a genocidal Goliath bound on achieving victory at all costs. Few understand that one reason why Khartoum is engaged in these massacres is to re-entrench its own power in the area and gain better control of oil resources within Sudan. Even fewer worry about the immense cost imposed on neighbouring African countries like Chad that are now receiving hundreds of thousands of refugees. Daunted by the prospect of having to understand something a little more complicated than Bad Superpower attacking small country for oil, the world simply looks the other way.

The Muslim world itself is just as complicit in the reprehensible ignorance that characterises the world communities’ attitude toward Darfur. Again, because the lines of conflict are not drawn as simply as Muslim against non-Muslim or occupier against occupied, the suffering of the Darfuri people fails to become the subject of religious sermons in the Muslim world. Because, both the perpetrators of evil (in this case the Sudanese government) and the victims (the Darfuris) are likely to be Muslim, it offers little in terms of making the individual Muslim feel wronged and serves few political agendas.

Indeed it does the opposite, it reminds individual Muslims that acts of reprehensible cruelty and despotic barbarism may just as well be carried out by Muslims as anyone else. Because it bears this grim message, one that does not lend itself to valorising one faith or nationality over another or suggest that religious unity can overcome anything, it is ignored. The death toll rises, the villages continue to burn and yet the world remains silent.

Rafia Zakaria is associate editor of altmuslim.com and an attorney and member of the Asian American Network Against Abuse of Women. She teaches courses on constitutional law and political philosophy. This article previously appeared in Daily Times (Pakistan).

Commentary

Rafia Zakaria

Previous Post

May 14, 2007

Confronting prejudice: Orthy’s wide world of profiling

Next Post

May 16, 2007 Preventing homegrown terror: Seeing eye to eye on extremism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "As for me, I know that my redeemer lives"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Job Abraham Moses Joseph