AN ASSESSMENT OF ALLEGATIONS THAT
THE DARFUR CONFLICT IS RACIAL
“I don’t think that we should be using the word ‘genocide’ to describe this conflict. Not at all. This can be a semantic
discussion, but nevertheless, there is no systematic target – targeting one ethnic group or another one. It doesn’t mean
either that the situation in Sudan isn’t extremely serious by itself.
”
Dr Mercedes Taty, Médecins sans Frontières deputy emergency director [1]
One of the sensationalist themes encountered with respect to the conflict in Darfur is that it is
a racial one in which light-skinned “Arab” tribes have been engaged in the “ethnic cleansing”
of black “African” tribes. [2] These sorts of claims are particularly inflammatory and very
questionable. Mahmood Mamdani, director of the Institute of African Studies at Columbia
University, noted that “The implication that these are two different races, one indigenous and
the other not is dangerous.” [3] 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
London Observer newspaper has reported, for example, that “[c]enturies of intermarriage has
rendered the two groups physically indistinguishable”.[4] The UN media service noted: “In
Darfur, where the vast majority of people are Muslim and Arabic-speaking, the distinction
between ‘Arab’ and ‘African’ is more cultural than racial.”[5] This reality has also been
confirmed by Dr Alex de Waal and other anti-government activists.[6] Ryle has noted that
Arabs and non-Arabs “are generally physically indistinguishable”. [7] The New York Times has exemplified contradictory reporting on this issue, with articles on one hand by their
columnist Nicholas Kristof alleging, for example, that “black Africans have been driven from
their homes by lighter-skinned Arabs in the Janjaweed” [8] while also publishing subsequent
articles such as “In Sudan, No Clear Difference Between Arab and African”. [9] Even “African”
Darfurian anti-government figures such as Dr Eltigani Ateem Seisi contradict the dangerously
lazy shorthand of the New York Times. Speaking at a conference in Brussels he stated with
reference to “Arabs” and “Africans” in Darfur that “we all look alike” and that one “can’t tell
from the features if he is Arab or African”. He added that he, an “African”, had a lighter skin
than many “Arabs”. [10]
Dr de Waal is one of the few recognised experts on Sudan, albeit from a clearly antigovernment
perspective. [11]
Described by The Observer newspaper of London as a “world authority on
the country”, de Waal is a human rights advocate who has published
widely on Sudan. He has also previously worked in Darfur. He has
pointedly challenged the “Arab” versus “African” stereotype, stating
that “Characterizing the Darfur war as ‘Arabs’ versus ‘Africans’
obscures the reality. Darfur’s Arabs are black, indigenous, African
Muslims – just like Darfur’s non-Arabs.” [12] He has also said:
We will see that the story is not as simple as the conventional rendering in the news,
which depicts a conflict between ‘Arabs’ and ‘Africans.’ The 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. [13]
A Policy of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur?
There has obviously been a vast displacement of civilians within Darfur, especially amongst
those communities from which the rebels have recruited and presumably sought other
support. A sensationalist media and human rights industry has claimed that the government
has pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. [14] The Sudanese junior foreign minister
Najeeb Alkhair Abdelwahab has stated with regard to claims of ethnic cleansing in Darfur
that: “The situation in Darfur is neither one of ethnic cleansing nor genocide. It is primarily a
clash over resources.” [15]
Claims of ethnic cleansing have also been challenged by reputable groups such as Médecins
Sans Frontières (MSF). MSF has been present in Darfur, at the heart of the crisis, since it
began. As of November 2004, MSF has over 200 international aid workers and over 2,000
national staff working throughout the three States (West, North and South Darfur) and an
additional 30 international staff and 160 national staff caring for Darfurian refugees in Chad.
MSF has medical teams in 26 locations in Darfur. It is an organisation that is well placed to
comment on allegations of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
Médecins Sans Frontières President Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol, a noted critic of allegations of
“genocide” in Darfur (describing such claims as “obvious political opportunism” [16], has also
been critical of claims of ethnic cleansing, stating: “Our teams have not seen evidence of the
deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group. We have received reports of massacres,
but not of attempts to specifically eliminate all the members of a group”. [17]
Dr Bradol also warned of describing events as “ethnic cleansing”: “The
social and tribal reality in Sudan is far more complex than such a
simplification. Racist ideologies are widely present in Sudanese
society and within the international community, and such
simplifications do not help in understanding the situation here at
all.” [18]
Dr
Bradol’s views echoed those of Dr Mercedes Taty, the Deputy Emergency
Director for Doctors without Borders, who speaking in April 2004,
noted: “there is no systematic target — targeting one ethnic group or
another one. It doesn’t mean either that the situation in Sudan isn’t
extremely serious by itself. But, I think it’s important not to mix
things…” [19] Hilton Dawson, chairman of the British
parliament’s group on Sudan, has also contradicted claims of ethnic
cleansing: “I don’t believe it’s the simple targeting of one ethnic
groups by another. I’ve talked to people on the ground on all sides.
There is a more complex mix of races than one would assume from simply
being told that this is Arabs against Africans or vice versa.” [20]
The
UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, has
also stated that the term “ethnic cleansing” did not fit events in
Darfur: “I think we have more reports actually of a kind of scorched
earth [policy] – and that nobody has taken over….It’s complex, because
some have said that it doesn’t fit the legal definition of ethnic
cleansing. The same tribes are represented both among those who are
cleansed and those who are cleansing.” [21] Mr
Egeland’s views have been echoed by key human rights experts. Asma
Jehangir, the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial summary and arbitrary
executions, for example, has said: “I wouldn’t categorise as ethnic
cleansing at the moment because that is not the impression that I am
getting. It could be an unintended purpose but the numbers are
staggering, the situation is terrible.” [22]
Allegations
of ethnic cleansing have also been clearly contradicted by Sudanese
government actions. Far from wishing to see the displacement of
“African” Darfurian communities, the government has self-evidently been
very eager to see these communities returned to their homes. In
November 2004, Khartoum reported to the UN that 270,000 displaced
people had been returned to their places of origin. The Sudanese
humanitarian affairs minister, Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid, stated: “More
than 270,000 people have voluntarily returned to their homes. This is a
very good sign and indicator that the situation in Darfur is
improving.” [23] Jan Pronk, the UN Special Envoy to
Sudan, was said to be concerned because neither the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees nor the UN Organisation for Migration had
been consulted prior to the repatriation. While there may well be some
concern as to whether all the returns were voluntary, Khartoum’s
eagerness to return refugees to their place of origin is manifest. The
United Nations has noted government pressure on displaced people to
return home, and has undertaken profiling exercises which “will inform
appropriate and timely planning of interventions when conditions for
return are in place.” [24] Attempts to compare Darfur
to Kosovo or any other example of ethnic cleansing fail to explain why
it is that – unlike in Kosovo and other parts of the former Yugoslavia,
for example, where there were clear attempts by governments to
permanently exclude people from their homeland – in Darfur the
government is being criticised for trying to return people to where
they came from.
Footnotes
|
 |
|
