open Democracy News Analysis - Who was your Valentine?, - Comments

L.W. on "Who was your Valentine?"

L.W. — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:06:06 +0100

Hello Courtney, Given what has happened in Darfur and how it has happened and by whom it was perpetrated, I find the intent to commit Genocide to be self evident. More over, if you still want to argue about the government's involvement and intent you should try to figure out how you can explain why the government of Sudan did nothing and still does nothing to stop this militia, that it doesn't prosecute anyone for any of the crimes committed against the civilians, does not investigate any of the complete destructions of entire villages, does not hold any accountability for the people who have been detained, abducted and no longer seen and all this is just the tip of the iceberg of everything else this government does not do and does not take responsibility for. I also will point out that legally "Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts. " ( from the same source) The pattern of acts committed by Government empowered Janjaweed militia attacking systematically the ethnic tribes mentioned above , plus the results of this which is intentional killings of unarmed civilians elderly, children ,women, deaths, displacement, bodily and mental injuries, castrations, gang rapes, destruction of villages, water wells, the destruction of all other means necessary for the survival of the displaced, etc. all of this put together represents a clear intent of creating all circumstances necessary for this ethnicity to cease to exist or procreate. . I see your point about the war in Sudan being much more complex , which is a good and truthful point. However, you should also see that a regular war can be much more complex and in another aspect. A war which has initially started as a non-genocidal political conflict within the borders of a whole region could actually be used as a shield to cover-up a secondary smaller inside job based on intent to commit a Genocide against a particular group. That's what I personally think that is happening. The discrimination against those African tribes is not from 2003 and 2004. it is from way back from the 1970s.

eric_5 on "Who was your Valentine?"

eric_5 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:33:26 +0100

Perhaps not. But it's no less horrible.

Robert_15 on "Who was your Valentine?"

Robert_15 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:38:14 +0100

If one is interested in the human side of the tragedy of Darfur, The Idependent has recently published an anguished dispatch from Darfur of Mia Farrow. Ms Farrow doesn't limits herself to Darfur, but mentions several other genocides in Africa while wishing:"No more, no more."

Courtney Hamilton on "Who was your Valentine?"

Courtney Hamilton — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:11:44 +0100

L. W, Your reply would only make sense if the Sudanese government were strictly 'Arabs' who were intent on killing only black people - but this self-evidently is not the case in Darfur, as I have painstakenly tried to explained to you above. There are people being killed in Darfur, that I have no doubt - but there is no proof that the government in Khartoum are intent on killing every single 'black' person who lives in Darfur - which is what you are suggesting. Acts that are committed during the course of an armed conflict that have no specific intent that is required by article II of the Convention, are not sufficient grounds to constitute genocide as defined by the Convention. What is vital and critically important here is the word intent, which is highly conspicuous by it's absence in your replys.

L.W. on "Who was your Valentine?"

L.W. — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:31:50 +0100

Well, let all of us take a good look at Courtney's ability to twist the debate into nothingness. ( spoken in jest) Courtney imagined that I said: "If the killing of 4000 people amounts to an act of genocide, then every single war in human history can be described as an 'act of genocide" What I have actually said is: "The act of Genocide against 4 000 people is the same act of Genocide as it is against 400 000 people or 4 000 000 people." Courtney the difference between what I said and what you have imagined that I have said is striking. It leaves me with the impression that you actually need to twist my words in order for you to further your point which isn't very impressive. "If the killing of 4000 people amounts to an act of genocide.." Yes indeed Courtney even the killing of 4 people of a group can be considered an act of Genocide, if it was a part of such policy. In fact even if there is no death an act can still be an act of genocide: "Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence." PS. Thanks for the links and info in your reply.

Courtney Hamilton on "Who was your Valentine?"

Courtney Hamilton — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:11:48 +0100

Quote:

"How sleek of you to imply that same colour is the same as same ethnicity. You know that the warring party included in the debate for Darfur are dark skinned but they are dark skin ARAB tribes represented by Janjaweed militia, backed by Al Bashir, against non-combatanat civilian dark skin NON ARAB tribes, namely the African tribes Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit. The ethnic motive is evident in this Genocide."

L. W. I'm afraid this idea represents one of the many myths developing and surrounding the war in Darfur. Dr Alex de Waal is a director of the human rights group, Justice Africa and a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard University - he is described by The Observer newspaper as the 'world authority on the country' of Sudan. He has challenged this stereotype view, he argues that characterising 'the Darfur war as ‘Arabs’ versus ‘Africans’ obscures the reality. Darfur’s Arabs are black, indigenous, African Muslims – just like Darfur’s non-Arabs". Indeed, another expert on African affairs Mahmood Mamdani, director of the Institute of African Studies at Columbia University argues that the 'implication that these are two different races, one indigenous and the other not is dangerous'. The European Sudanese Public Affairs Council argues that the 'simple fact is that there is very little, if any, racial difference between the many tribes of Darfur, “Arab” or “African”. Both communities are black'. The UN media service also noted that in 'Darfur, where the vast majority of people are Muslim and Arabic-speaking, the distinction between ‘Arab’ and ‘African’ is more cultural than racial'. Even the Darfurian anti-Khartoum government activist such as Dr Eltigani Ateem Seisi argued that it would be impossible to distinguish from his features if he is 'Arab or African'. He also noted that he was an African who had a lighter skin than many Arabs. This story is not as simple as L. W would like us all to believe - again, I have to point you to the words of Dr de Waal who has rubbished the simple notion that the conflict is between 'Arabs and Africans'. Dr de Waal argued that the;

Quote:

"Zaghawa…are certainly indigenous, black and African: they share distant origins with the Berbers of Morocco and other ancient Saharan peoples. But the name of the ‘Bedeyat’, the Zaghawa’s close kin, should alert us to their true origins: pluralize in the more traditional manner and we have ‘Bedeyiin’ or Bedouins. Similarly, the Zaghawa’s adversaries in this war, the Darfurian Arabs, are ‘Arabs’ in the ancient sense of ‘Bedouin,’ meaning desert nomad…Darfurian Arabs, too, are indigenous, black, and African. In fact there are no discernible racial or religious differences between the two: all have lived there for centuries". Dr Alex de Waal - Tragedy in Darfur: On Understanding and Ending the Horror. Boston Review. 2004.

The real truth of the matter is, it appears to me as if some Save Darfur activists are actively belittling and relativising the one and true genocide that was committed by the West in the last century.

Quote:

"The act of Genocide against 4 000 people is the same act of Genocide as it is against 400 000 people or 4 000 000 people". L. W.

Is it really? Such statements actually end up belittling the real meaning of what a genocidal act actually is. If the killing of 4000 people amounts to an act of genocide, then every single war in human history can be described as an 'act of genocide'. If that is the case, then the political movement in Germany that tore Europe apart during the last century couldn't have been all that then. The Nazi Holocaust and the 'genocide' in Darfur - what's the difference?

L.W. on "Who was your Valentine?"

L.W. — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:30:37 +0100

Hello Courtney, There is a lot of sense in your criticism. Yet, I think that instead of suggesting that we should close our eyes for Darfur because of Congo, may be one should suggest the opposite - to open our eyes for Congo as we do for Darfur. If indeed you think there is a Genocide going on and in Congo, speak up! I would accept your explanation without a doubt, if I could actually forget how just 3 months ago you were saying in your conversation with Robert how people were never killed in Darfur in such numbers, how there is no evidence, how there are no pictures and so on. Your ABSOLUTE denial is hard to get by without perceiving a very particular insensitivity on your part, the least to say, for the faith of the people in that region. It is also hard not to notice how you tried to gloss over the ethnic motives in Darfur by saying that the Geneva definition of Genocide is fine by you but you don't see it fit for Darfur because the warring parties are of the "same colour". ( I refer to one of your posts on the thread Testimonies of the survivors. How sleek of you to imply that same colour is the same as same ethnicity. You know that the warring party included in the debate for Darfur are dark skinned but they are dark skin ARAB tribes represented by Janjaweed militia, backed by Al Bashir, against non-combatanat civilian dark skin NON ARAB tribes, namely the African tribes Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit. The ethnic motive is evident in this Genocide. Courtney, I am sorry to say this but , other than your concern of the after effects of western intervention, you certainly must have another reason to so blatantly deflect the truth. For the difference in number counts of people murdered in Darfur I can tell you this- numbers change every day because every day that goes by more people die and because there is more information and evidence being unearthed. If the deaths were 200 000, 5 years ago, there is nothing surprising that they are 400 000 now. Besides, 5 years ago there was a lot less media coverage and investigation going on than there is now. The better the investigation the more precise the numbers will be. The point thou is that the accountability for an act of Genocide is not diminished or escalated by a lower or a higher number of deaths. The act of Genocide against 4 000 people is the same act of Genocide as it is against 400 000 people or 4 000 000 people.

Courtney Hamilton on "Who was your Valentine?"

Courtney Hamilton — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:06:36 +0100

Richard Lawson, The thing is, if there was de facto evidence of genocide, in the classical sense, unfolding on the ground in Darfur, then it would be extremely difficult, indeed, nigh impossible for me to oppose UN military intervention. So, yes, me and you have come to some sort of agreement, on this particular issue - but this is mainly because we both appear to have at the very least, a more critical understanding of how wars can brutalise all participants - even the 'good' guys from the UN. But what makes me really angry, is the way some Save Darfur activists relentlessly highlight the fact that 200,000, or if your a super hardcore Save Darfur activist, the more inaccurate figure of 400,000 deaths from the Darfur region constitute genocide, and that is that! - yet, as I've mentioned many times before, there have been nearly 2 million people who have indirectly been killed in Congo, and that's only in the past two years - but we do not hear of serious African commentators or intellectuals talking about the 'genocide' in Congo, do we? Even though 200,000 of those deaths were due directly to the violence, news communication giants like CNN, consciously, do not use the 'g' word to describe events on the ground in Congo. CNN call those events by their real and proper name - war. There is no 'hidden agenda' - my opposition to Western military interventions is simply based on the fact that ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, nearly every single military adventure and political meddling in the Third World by Western forces have made the situation on the ground far worse for those on the receiving end - from Bosnia to Iraq, we all know those 'humanitarian' adventures were always paved with ever so good intentions - but to me, a force that bombs cities like Belgrade from 30,000 feet, or reduce the cities of Baghdad and Basra back to the Stone-Age, could never be a force for 'good' or progress in Africa. And besides, I certainly wouldn't like to think that I could be, how the former British cabinet Minster Clare Short, and Harriet Harman put it - "Duped".

Robert_15 on "Who was your Valentine?"

Robert_15 — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:42:08 +0100

L.W. Thanks for the cheers, although I don't feel much like cheering. What really bothers me is that I have failed to understand Courtney Hamilton hidden agenda behind his refusal to acknowledge that a genocide is going on in Darfur. I can comprehend his being against neo-colonial intervention by white people in Africa even when UN-sponsored and particularly when reports of atrocities committed by UN soldiers are in the news. But this doesn't justify his opposition to send peace keepers to help and protect children and women in jeopardy.

Richard Lawson on "Who was your Valentine?"

Richard Lawson — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:45:23 +0100

Courtney, I do not often agree with you, but I can agree that soldiers, including UN soldiers, very often commit horrible, bestial acts. War brutalises people. War is a form of group madness, in a literal sense, in that people engaged in war become detached from reality. I conclude from this that we must make every effort to avoid war. The new UN doctrine of Responsibility to Protect does include the threat of war to stop genocide when all else fails. I conclude from that that we need an Index of Human Rights to minimise the risk of the UN having to intervene militarily. Do you agree? Yours, clutching a metaphorical tin hat, Richard

Courtney Hamilton on "Who was your Valentine?"

Courtney Hamilton — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:12:02 +0100

It's true that an image can be worth a thousand words - just take a look at this image. It's a photograph of two UN Belgian troops who were caught trying to roast a Somali boy, yes, you got that right, ROAST him! This was an atrocity committed during the UN operation unfortunately entitled 'Restore Hope'. And what did these two 'peacekeeping' paratroopers receive for such a hideous crime? A month in prison, and the loss of a week’s wages. Such crimes by UN troops in Third World countries are not isolated incidents, indeed, UN 'peacekeeping' forces, throughout the world are notorious for establishing such patterns of abuse. This is in fact a natural situation that foreign elite 'peacekeeping' forces find themselves in when confronted by events on the ground they cannot really begin to comprehend. Of course, the boy in the photograph will never receive any real justice for the crime committed on him; this is mainly because UN forces are totally unaccountable to African people. The road that led UN troops to his home in Somalia was paved with so many good intentions by liberal interventionist in the West - all because such UN missions are deemed to be a good thing even if a 'few' Africans are brutalised on the way - this is what the people of Darfur have to look forward to. Read on: U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children. World Net Daily. U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges. CNN.com/world. 2007. New Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Peacekeepers in Africa. The New York Times. 2007.

L.W. on "Who was your Valentine?"

L.W. — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:03:54 +0100

Hello people, Courtney, I must admit I was delighted with the interesting turn in the events which took place recently. I think the record sky high number of peace-keeping troops deployed to Darfur region shows that not too many people share your opinion. As I suggested in the past, the evidence regarding the Genocide in Darfur can and would be reviewed, second , third and fourth look will be taken at it. With time, more and more voices of Darfuri survivors will reach the pages of the media : full blast. Soon Al Bashir will pay for his crimes against humanity. Robert, Cheers! Hard work pays off. A picture is worth a thousand words. Brian Steidle """Mihad now represents to me the countless victims of this vicious war, a war that we documented but given our restricted mandate were unable to stop. Every day we surveyed evidence of killings: men castrated and left to bleed to death, huts set on fire with people locked inside, children with their faces smashed in, men with their ears cut off and eyes plucked out, and the corpses of people who had been executed with gunshots to the head. We spoke with thousands of witnesses -- women who had been gang-raped and families that had lost fathers, people who plainly and soberly gave us their accounts of the slaughter."""

Robert_15 on "Who was your Valentine?"

Robert_15 — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:39:10 +0100

Courtney Hamilton, There is only one word for your writings: Ravings!

Courtney Hamilton on "Who was your Valentine?"

Courtney Hamilton — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:42:02 +0100

Ron Alllen, The cause of peace in Africa can never be served by self-righteous liberals in the West who constantly make events on the ground in Africa sound much worse than they really are. These liberal interventionists honestly believe that people will only care about Africa if it can be presented to us in the most horrific way they can imagine. Robert_15 is one of the worst culprits of only presenting Africa to us in the most lurid, and in most cases, the most inaccurate way possible. Look at the way he has tried to argue that drawings made by children is proof of genocide in Darfur - yeah, right, whatever... Of course, nobody could possibly imagine the Court in Hague finding someone guilty of such a serious crime as genocide because of a few rudimentary scribbles made by school children? Of course not - yet, this doesn't seem to have occurred to Robert_15 who seems to think his hot air on Darfur is beyond criticism and interrogation. People like Robert_15, and the rest of the Chattering classes in the West have cynically adopted Darfur as 'Our Righteous Cause'. They insist that the civil war in western Sudan is just a simple case of savage Africans trying to wipe out another set of African victims. The propaganda they use is to over exaggerate the scale of the suffering because it suits their morality tale, which is ready-made for simpletons. Indeed, Robert_15 has posted nothing that can actually clarify what is precisely going on in Darfur, his posts are meant to flatter the reader and their sense of self-serving anger. It simply hasn't occurred to Robert_15 that his demands for Western military intervention in Darfur comes at a time when there has actually been a marked decline of armed conflict in the Darfur region. The Chatterati like Robert_15 have got what they wanted, 26,000 heavily armed UN personnel roaming around Darfur, telling the Sudanese what to do in their OWN country. As far as I'm concerned, this is just as cynical as the Bush administrations military adventures in the Persian Gulf. Activists that support the latest UN interventions in Darfur are no more than western apologists for militarism as a final solution in someone else's country, and to someone else's civil war, all just for their own moral self-gratification. Robert_15 appears to actively seeks to distort public understanding of the debates that surround Darfur, worst still, the relentless good victim verses the evil/Black Nazis presentation of the conflict is in fact having a very perverse effect on the ground. Indeed, an official from the American State Department back in 2004 told the world's press that instead of standing up and fighting the Khartoum government, the rebel faction the Justice and Equality Movement; "are doing everything possible to keep it going. The S.L.A. has never stood up to the army the way the S.P.L.A. did in the south. Instead, they’ve been very content to sit back, let the village burnings go on, let the killing go on, because the more international pressure that’s brought to bear on Khartoum, the stronger their position grows". Mahmood Mamdani is an expert in African political affairs, he is also professor of Government at Columbia University, and author of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror. In a recent essay he explores how Save Darfur from 'genocide' activists have slowly transformed the Sudanese civil war into a platform for self-righteous moral posturing. I agree with much of Mamdani's sentiments regarding Save Darfur activists - for they have managed to systematically reduced a complex African civil war, that involves many armed factions and government troops fighting over land, water and grazing rights, down to one word - 'genocide'. As far as Save Darfur activists are concerned, Darfur can only be described in lurid and exaggerated terminology. Mamdani talks on how newspaper 'writing on Darfur has sketched a pornography of violence’, he adds that liberal interventionists are 'fascinated by and fixated on the gory details, describing the worst of the atrocities in gruesome detail and chronicling the rise in the number of them. The implication is that the motivation of the perpetrators lies in biology (“race”) and, if not that, certainly in “culture”. Mamdani rightfully calls this the 'pornography of violence', it's for hardcore Save Darfur activist who think nothing of exaggerating the facts about how many people have died in Darfur. Take for example the Save Darfur Coalition with all their international campaigns on TV, in the cinema, and their full page adverts in the press, thinks nothing of exaggerating mortality rates in Darfur - the worst thing about all of this, is very few people will be 'aware' of how Sudan is literally being prostituted by Western interventionists, who appear hell bent on trampling over any Third World countries national sovereignty.

Robert_15 on "Who was your Valentine?"

Robert_15 — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:29:25 +0100

Ron Allen, I am, as you, waiting for the horse's mouth to speak. On the other hand, on my other thread Africa Basket Case of the World, CH has given us Whities the finger and suggested it would be much better for Africa if and when all the NGOs, the IMF, the CB, the UN and all the other busy bodies would up and leave Africa to her own resources. What are we waiting for?

Who was your Valentine?,

PFS — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:56:13 +0000

Mine were the people of Darfur, especially the women and children, who are suffering daily attack, hunger, rape and death while the world looks the other way. http://www.darfurgenocide.org/ With thanks to Taissia, my beautiful Russian muse, who inspired me once again yesterday with her youthful love and compassion. The greatest gift you can make to the world is to live your life the way you truly want to. (Ack. Cornelius)