Proof of Genocide and the Future of Terrorism

On 9 September 2004, Colin Powell declared, with the President’s administration behind his words, that the horrific slaughters and systematic rapes in Darfur, Sudan constituted genocide. On 25 January 2005, the United Nations sanctioned International Commission of Inquiry into Darfur (ICID), having assessed the same situation, issued a report saying that it could not accuse the Sudanese government of genocide. There lacked, it said, the intent to commit genocide necessary to convict someone of such a heinous crime. Certainly, the ICID had access to more information about the atrocities than this writer, yet it is also certain that even someone with this amount of information can establish the guilt of the Sudanese government and their Janjawid militias alike, in brutally and intentionally carrying out the first genocide of the twenty-first century.

The contemporary history of Darfur is rich with illustrations of how and why this genocide is now occurring. In 1984, there was a fairly common drought in Sudan: the subsequent famine that developed in Darfur was utterly avoidable. However, the distant government in Khartoum has historically marginalized the Darfuri people, and the ‘84 drought was no different. The government in Darfur was incredibly weak, and Khartoum only exacerbated the problem: as documented by Gerard Prunier in his book, Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide, “Funds earmarked for water projects [in Darfur] had been lying for years in Port Sudan with nobody bothering to collect it, the rural water teams did not receive their salaries on time, and the relevant ministries in Khartoum simply issued glorified statistics bearing no relationship to reality”. Thus the people of Darfur starved, lacking the necessary water to lead their normal lives and to produce enough food to survive on.

In the Sudan, “Arab” tribes live mainly as nomads, while “black Africans” tend to be farmers: until this point in history, these groups had a generally symbiotic relationship. “Arab” nomads passing through a farmer’s land would graze their animals on said land, and the farmers would get traded goods from the nomads in exchange. When famine struck, however, and there was no hope of receiving life-sustaining aid from Khartoum, the Darfuri people (“Arab and “African” alike) were left to fend for themselves. Tensions between the groups escalated during this period because of the dramatic scarcity of food.

This tension was then used by Khartoum to its advantage: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Sudan’s neighbor, Libya, had immediate designs on Chad. To ensure the “Libyanization” of Chad, Gaddafi wanted to wage a proxy war in Darfur (strategically located on Chad’s eastern border and the south-eastern border of Libya). Sadiq al-Mahdi, Sudan’s leader at the time, allowed the fighting to take place in Darfur, largely because he received four MiG-23 fighter bombers for the Sudan Armed Forces from Libya (Prunier). Here began a long precedent for Khartoum using Darfur only as a battlefield to gain leverage in Chadian and Libyan ambitions, politics, and warfare.

Thousands and thousands were perishing in Darfur because of Khartoum’s lethal combination of neglecting the Darfuri people (particularly “black Africans”) and using them as pawns in international struggles. After years of organization, on 25 April 2003, the Sudan Liberation Army rebel group attacked government forces at El-Fashir and Nyala. They “killed thirty government soldiers and two officers, occupied the airport, blew up two Antonov An-12 ‘transport bombers’, and three Mil Mi-17 combat helicopters, and captured Brigadier Ibashim Bushra Ismail, the air force base commander” (Prunier). This was a job militaristically too well done, and Khartoum was frightened that these rebels, who were fighting against the marginalization and oppression of their black African tribes, posed a serious threat against their power. This rebellion could result in a total loss of Khartoum’s stronghold in the area, which would make it as vulnerable to the interference of neighboring forces as Chad was. All the “black Africans”, then, must be removed, and the tension that had been strengthened in the ‘84 famine proved easy for the government to exacerbate, pitting “Arab” Muslims against “African” Muslims: pitting human being against human being.

The government decided to use the “Arab” Janjawid militia as their means through which to commit genocide because the government army (at the time) had too many “black Africans” in it, who refused to slaughter their ethnic brethren. Further, it would be much easier to deny connections with the Janjawid, and dismiss the massive scales of rape and slaughter in Darfur as merely local ethnic complications.

Article 2 of the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (1948) specifies five actions that, when any of them are committed with genocidal intent (to be addressed presently), make the perpetrator guilty not of just any crime against humanity, but of genocide. The first of these actions are “killing members of the group”. It is an undisputed fact that the Janjawid are responsible for countless deaths in the Darfur region. These murders are on a vast scale (400,000 dead in the past three years, and this rough figure rises by about ten thousand souls every month). The second action listed is “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”. A 25 February 2006 Human Rights Watch report testifies that “Male relatives who protested [to the women getting raped] were beaten, stripped naked, tied to trees, and forced to watch the rape of the women and girls. In some cases, the men were then branded with a hot knife as a mark of their humiliation”. Another horrifically perfect example of this harm, both bodily and mental, can be found in Julie Flint and Alex de Waal’s 2005 book, Darfur: A Short History of a Long War:

"In the village of Har Jang in North Darfur in April 2004, Janjawid summarily executed a group of young men with bullets in the back of the head. One young man who was the only survivor in his family, having saved his life by hiding under a dead mule, recounted how the attackers ‘took a knife and cut my mother’s throat and threw her into the well. Then they took my oldest sister and began to rape her, one by one. My father was kneeling, crying and begging them for mercy. After that they killed my brother and finally my father. They threw the bodies in the well.’"

The last statement, about throwing human carcasses in the previously clean water well, exemplifies the third action that can constitute genocide, that is, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. The Janjawid make it close to impossible for the refugees to live, according to a 5 October 2006 Amnesty International report, “Crying Out For Darfur”:

"The land abandoned [after the Janjawid forced villagers out] did not remain vacant. The Janjawid utilized the land of the displaced for their livestock, passing through villages, making use of the untended water points, taking what was left of the agricultural produce and attacking any of the original inhabitants who attempted to return - effectively occupying the land."

The mere fact that over three million Darfuri have been forced to relocate due to attacks (often multiple times), to struggle for sustenance in the awful conditions of tattered refugee camps, is a testament to how the genocidaires are bringing about “conditions of life” that is physically destroying their target. Even the refugee camps are terribly risky places to survive in: when women go out of the camps to gather firewood, they are very often raped by Janjawid, who patrol the area to ensure that the “zurga” (“slaves”) remain in their place. Men cannot go out to get firewood, because if they do they are most often killed. Even if they are not, an event like the following, recounted by a Masalit woman from West Darfur can occur (from the same Amnesty International report):

"Sometimes we go to collect grass, to sell in the market to buy things we need for our children. They [the Janjawid] send two people, and the rest of them set up an ambush. They stop their car in a khor or a hill. Some of them act as guards. The two people then approach us and, when we see them, we run. Some of us succeed in getting away, and some are caught and taken to be raped – gang-raped. Maybe around 20 men rape one woman… Last time a number of women got caught and I do not know what was done to them – we ran.

But for the men, they put saddles on their backs when they catch them – just like donkeys. My brother was one of them. They put the saddle on his back and fastened it tightly under his belly. They put something in his behind to make it look like he had a tail. They pulled his testicles out for all to see… We found him and took him for treatment to Al-Genaina hospital…

These things are normal for us here in Darfur. These things happen all the time. I have seen rapes too. It does not matter who sees them raping the women – they don’t care. They rape women in front of their mothers and fathers."

Firewood is essential because, among other reasons, the (very) limited amount of humanitarian food aid that can reach the refugees is not edible unless it is cooked. Rape is used, then, both as a terror tactic and as a weapon of war.

The fourth way in which one can commit genocide is by “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. Rape used as a systematic weapon may not limit the number of births per se: however, a woman who has been raped is a woman permanently marked. (This mark is often physical: the Janjawid will slash a woman so deeply in the leg that she will, in the absence of proper medical treatment, hobble for the rest of her days. Yet the deeper mark is the horrible cultural stigma associated with being raped.) Children who are deemed to be ‘Arab’ because they were conceived when a Janjawid soldier brutalized their mother are not accepted into the community, and wives are disowned by their husbands if they reveal that they were raped.

The final act of genocide listed in the Genocide Convention of 1948 is “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Ten thousand people are dying every month in Darfur, and a very large percentage of these are children under five, having been forced from their villages by their fellow human beings. Even more directly, the Janjawid has made a habit of sporadically capturing not only women, but also children, to hold for a time among them as sex slaves. On 19 July 2004, Amnesty International released another harrowing report about the situation in Darfur, here relaying the account of a sixty-six year old Darfuri:
"They took K.M., who is 12 years old in the open air. Her father was killed by the Janjawid in Um Baru, the rest of the family ran away and she was captured by the Janjawid who were on horse back. More than six people used her as a wife; she stayed with the Janjawid and the military more than 10 days. K, another woman who is married, aged 18, ran away but was captured by the Janjawid who slept with her in the open place, all of them slept with her. She is still with them. A, a teacher, told me that they broke her leg after raping her."

These are the actions of the Janjawid militias: however, to truly constitute genocide, it is true that the Genocide Convention does also mandate these inhuman and criminal acts must be committed with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group”. This intent can be undeniably established in the case of the Janjawid and their leader, Musa Hilal. In a 2004 directive, sent out from the offices of Hilal himself, the order was given to “change the demography of Darfur and empty it of African tribes”. Further, according to directives issued by the Executive Committee of the Arab Gathering (which Hilal supports), “zurga” areas need to be cleansed by Arabs, namely “to stop production in these areas, to eliminate their leaders...[and] to ensure their disunity” by 2020 (de Waal, Flint). Displaced Darfuri survivors in Chadian and Darfuri refugee camps claim, when the Janjawid destroyed their villages, that they were commonly heard shouting things such as “all the Blacks must die” (Prunier). Amnesty International recently interviewed a Masalit woman from West Darfur, who also claimed that “The Janjaweed told [her]: ‘You are a Nuba woman, daughter of a whore. You have no right to these cattle and they do not belong to you’”. So saying, they killed the man she was with and took off with their cattle.

The Janjawid are also often reported to tell their victims that the land “now belong[s] to the Arabs”. A survivor of a 2003 Janjawid attack on Jafal reported that the Janjawid said to the villagers “You are Black, you are like slaves. Then the Darfur region will be in the hands of the Arabs. The government is on our side. The government plane is on our side, it gives us food and ammunition” (Prunier). It is clear, then, that the actions of the Janjawid are not only horrible and inhuman: they also constitute genocide, because the intent behind them is certainly consistent with the desire to “destroy, in whole or in part, members of a[n]...ethnical...group”.

Yet the crimes do not stop with the Janjawid. The government of Sudan, too, is plainly guilty of the crime of genocide. The Janjawid militias, acting alone, would not have the military means with which to destroy lives and villages as they do. According to Peter Takirambudde in a 6 September 2006 Human Rights Watch report, “Government forces are bombing villages with blatant disregard for human rights”. These very same civilian lives are the ones the Janjawid are slaughtering with everything from machetes to rocket-propelled grenades. Accounts from a 2004 Amnesty International report by survivors subsisting near the Chadian border with Darfur typify attacks on their old homes:
"The Arabs [Janjawid] and the government forces arrived on both sides of the village with vehicles...There was also a [government] helicopter and an Antonov plane. They shelled the town with more than two hundred shells... Then the [Janjawid] burnt all our houses and took all the goods from the market."

A similar take from a different village:
"The Janjawid were accompanied by soldiers. They attacked people, saying: ‘You are the opponents to the regime, we must crush you. As you are Black, you are like slaves. Then the entire Darfur region will be in the hands of the Arabs. The government is on our side. The government plane is on our side, it gives us food and ammunition."

These numerous and highly consistent refugee reports seem to underline the UN’s own 31 August Panel of Experts report, which stated:
"The Janjawid/armed militias appear to have upgraded their modus operandi from horses, camels, and AK-47s to land cruisers, pick-up trucks and rocket-propelled grenades. Reliable sources indicate that the Janjawid continue to be subsumed into the [government’s] Popular Defense Force...evident is their ability to coordinate with the Sudanese armed forces in perpetrating attacks on villages and to engage in armed conflict with rebel groups."

This is certainly consistent with the fact that Khartoum is granted over one billion dollars worth of weaponry per year from China in exchange for oil deals (Amnesty International), and with Refugee International’s conclusion that:
China National Petroleum Corporation contributes Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, firearms, and ammunition to the Sudanese military and SSDF [the Khartoum-backed militia forces in southern Sudan]. China has also established three arms factories in Sudan.
These arms deliveries seem to be getting through to the Janjawid militias, and their leader, Musa Hilal, certainly has not denied his connection with the government. In an interview with Human Rights Watch on 27 September 2004, Hilal repeatedly stated that “All of the people in the field are led by top army commanders...[The Janjawid he commands] get their orders from the Western command center and from Khartoum”. Further, a 28 August 2006 UNHCHR report seems to acknowledge the government’s direct involvement in the genocide:

"The [recent bombing in Buram, South Darfur] campaign, marked by widespread targeting of civilians from tribes that are locally referred to as being of African origin, wholesale burning of villages, looting and forced displacement, appears to have been conducted with the knowledge and material support of the Government atrocities."

The government is not merely complicit in the genocide, however (even though ‘mere’ “complicity in genocide” is punishable by Article 3 of the Genocide Convention): it is the driving force behind it. Starvation is being used by the government as a deadlier weapon than any rocket-propelled grenade in this genocide. There are between 300,000 and 500,000 metric tons of grain that Khartoum keeps tucked away in reserve, while millions of its own people are starving, relying on the international food aid that the government also tries to keep from the people. Sudan expert Eric Reeves stated in a 13 May 2006 report that only 17,000 metric tons of food would be needed to feed a million people for a month. Yet none of the 7,000 children under age five that perish each month in Darfur, often from malnutrition, ever see that stored grain. USAID said in a report from May 2006 that Khartoum sets food prices so high that it is cheaper for starving Darfuri to waste away whilst waiting for international food aid to reach them. This aid is being choked, however, as refugee camps become more and more inaccessible to foreign aid workers. Twelve aid workers have been killed in Darfur in the last few months, and Dr. Denis Lamasson of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans FrontiPres has said, “MSF has experienced four major incidents. While I was visiting Mornay, a team arrived. They had been attacked and beaten on the road and their car struck by gunfire. The team was lucky to make it back”. The World Food Program has been forced to half its distributions, and as a result, 355,000 people went without necessary food aid in August alone.

Targeted starvation as, essentially, a genocidal weapon of mass destruction is being used by the Sudanese government right now, at the brink of the 21st century: and the world is merely watching. Indeed, “the present conflict seems to be an attempt to remove the tribes of African origin and make it an entirely Arab tribe area. This was reportedly done with the assumption that any international troops would focus on maintaining the status quo in the area” (UNHCHR, 28 August 2006). The international community must utilize all the information at its fingertips, contemporary history and that of years past, that of Sudan and of WWII Europe, 1980s and 90s Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda. This genocide must be acknowledged as such, and the necessary actions to remove the genocidaires from power and try them in the International Criminal Court must be immediately taken. A strong African Union presence in Darfur, with an adequate mandate, force size, and funding, may help save civilian lives, but in January 2007, Sudanese President al-Bashir will take command of the AU, effectively neutralizing its potential to help innocents in Darfur.

A UN force would be materially opposed by Khartoum, as has been made crystal clear since the UN’s 31 August 2006 Resolution 1706: realistically, too, there is the problem of actually recruiting some 20,000 troops to send, as well as that of staunch opposition from China and Russia to saving innocent lives when it is not immediately financially beneficial. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times has suggested that, with the lack of humanity’s true conviction to save lives in any immediate fashion, UN forces can be sent to the Central African Republic and Chad, at the very least: Darfuri refugees are in abundance there (500,000 in CAR and 1 million in Chad), and the fighting must no be allowed to spill into those countries any more than it already has. Al-Bashir is supporting, ideologically and with weaponry, Janjawid and Chadian rebels who wish to overthrow the current Chadian leader, Idris Deby. This manipulation of international politics must not be permitted to continue, as it is terribly dangerous for the Chadian and Darfuri people, not to mention its gross illegality.

Economic sanctions are another option, but everyone, including China, must sponsor them, and they must be immediate and strong. Sanctions would have to be properly targeted to those responsible for perpetuating the violence, and there would have to be strong convictions behind them in order to ensure that there are not loop holes. These sanctions cannot merely be from the West and be expected to be effective. As Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times wrote in a 24 October 2006 article, “firms from China, Malaysia, India, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are racing in [to Sudan]”. This renders the already established American embargoes on numerous Sudanese investments grossly ineffectual. Wealth in the form of malls, Coca-Cola, “Wal-mart-size megastore[s]”, and a five-star hotel are arising in and around Sudan, but the Darfuri people are seeing none of these oil boom profits. Indeed, Sudan is arguably the fastest growing oil exporter in the world. Despite this, the people of Darfur continue to languish in genocidal misery: it is clear that Western sanctions alone are certainly not going to do the trick. Countries such as China and Malaysia must be convinced to cease their dealings with the genocidal and rich leader of Sudan, President Omar al-Bashir.

Establishing a military no-fly zone over Darfur is an intriguing thought, as it would cut off the Janjawid’s ability to ride into villages that have already been bombed by the government. However, as Eric Reeves pointed out in a 15 October 2006 article, the government has, for example, begun painting their bombers white, which is the color of medical transports. This makes it nearly impossible to differentiate immediately between military and aid planes, which renders the idea of an effective no-fly zone almost moot.

Another intriguing idea to be explored is that of providing strong economic incentives for those willing to help stop the genocide to do so. These incentives would not only aid in stopping the violence now, but they would help create life conditions in Darfur that would, for generations to come, improve drastically the standards of living for all the Sudanese people. This requires the genocidaires in the country to first be removed from power and brought before the ICC: the UN must take this abundant proof into account and fearlessly proclaim these atrocities to be genocide. Having done this, it must obey the mandate of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and remove the genocidaires from power. Once done, economic incentives must immediately be given to the local leaders, whose power is acknowledged by the local tribes: equal amounts of financial aid should be offered to each locality. With this money, infrastructures must be built securely and efficiently, and education must take priority, along with providing equal security and medial treatment. If patterns of oppression and death arise, within tribal lines or across them, the perpetrating leader must immediately be stripped of aid, which will put him at a serious disadvantage, because neighboring communities will have greater financial power than he. Therefore, it will be in all Sudanese’s interest to bring back peace and allow refugees to return safely home. Beyond these general financial incentives to help Sudan achieve security and self-sufficiency for all its people, the international community must not become involved in anything beyond diplomacy and trade relations: when sovereignty is not being used to oppress and slaughter its people, it must be respected.

It is clearly in the entire world’s interest to put a swift halt to the genocide: not only is it the moral imperative of all humanity to ease suffering and save lives, but in some years, Sudan will become the next Afghanistan, the next Iraq. Sudan is an ideal atmosphere for terrorism to secure a base: the US shies from serious action against Khartoum because it fears losing an ‘ally’ in the ‘war on terrorism’. The US has turned away (in terms of concrete action) from the faces of the dying children of Darfur because in 1996, al-Bashir agreed to expel Osama Bin Laden from Sudan, and in the ten years since then, al-Bashir has allowed “the Sudanese intelligence agency [to seize] and [turn] over to the FBI evidence recovered in raids on suspected terrorists' homes, including fake passports”, as well as expelling a number of extremists from the country (Ken Silverstein, Los Angeles Times, 2005). Al-Bashir knows that this will keep him immune from serious US action against his government, and this was exemplified in 2001, when, in reporter Ken Silverstein’s words:

"In late September, Kansteiner and the CIA's Africa division chief held discussions with Babiker at the U.S. Embassy in London. A deal was struck. Days later, the Bush administration abstained on a vote at the United Nations, with the result that Sudan was freed from international sanctions imposed for its alleged role in efforts to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1995."

Words on the part of the US (or any) government can be quite condemning, but they are not, without strong financial, political, and (unfortunately) military support, going to protect the toddlers and the elderly of Darfur from being tossed into flames while still alive.

Yet the US, along with the rest of the world, lacks the slightest bit of vision with which to see that a) the Sudanese government and their Janjawid fighters are prime examples of terrorists as it is, and b) that the refugee conditions being established in Darfur and Chad will soon become a hotbed of emerging terrorism. This generation of displaced innocence, growing up orphaned in a strange land with no food, security, or promising prospects for the future is, unless we act, destined to become tomorrow’s best candidates for terrorist recruitment. The Taliban began in frighteningly similar refugee camps on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan: in Darfur and the eastern border of Chad are right now languishing the next huge wave of recruits, through no fault of their own. The world needs to help these refugees, because they are human beings suffering as no one ever should, and because if we do not help them out of this forced displacement, starvation, and constant danger of losing their lives, this will be the ‘war on terror’ my generation will suffer through.

There is government sponsored genocide occurring in Darfur, Sudan right now: the undeniable imperative of humanity is to immediately support strong words with strong actions, and to bring to trial those who have been slaughtering innocence on a massive scale.

An excerpt from Darfur: A Short History of a Long War, by Julie Flint and Alex de Waal:

"Early in 2003, a young woman called Mariam Ahmad was stopped at a roadblock and forced to watch while the Janjawid cut the penis off her 21-day-old son, Ahmad. The child died soon after in her arms. In Bargai, a village near Zalingei, a young mother who had just given birth to twins was killed with her legs tied to her neck, exposing her genitals. Her babies were thrown into a container of boiling water that had been brought for the birth."

Three years and hundreds of thousands of lost lives later, a 6 October UNHCHR report, regarding the events of 28 August in Tirtish, Darfur:

"Reportedly, women and children were thrown into burning dwellings as they attempted to flee. Children as young as three years old, including the daughter of an interviewee, were killed in this manner. A witness reported that he personally participated in the burial of 62 people killed in Tirtish that day (he himself later fled), and estimates the total civilian death toll in the village at between 80 and 90. He reports that at least 40 people in the village, including many children, are unaccounted for."

This is the reality of Darfur, Sudan: this is the reality that we can and must change.