Khartoum's Gamble: Genocide Continues Because the National Islamic Front
Does Not Believe the World Will Intervene in Darfur

Eric Reeves
June 25, 2004

With so much conspicuous and compelling evidence of genocide in Darfur,
with impending visits to the region by US Secretary of State Colin
Powell (scheduled for June 29, 2004) and by UN Secretary-general Kofi
Annan, with a powerful and growing chorus of voices declaring that the
vast human destruction in Darfur is in fact genocide, why does the
National Islamic Front regime continue to impede humanitarian access?
Why does the regime refuse to rein in the Janjaweed militias that have
been allies in so much genocidal destruction? Why does the regime
continue with its preposterous claims and denials? (A small sampling of
the regime's recent brazen remarks and actions:

"Sudanese President Omar el-Beshir has accused unnamed 'foreigners' of
trying to take advantage of the crisis in the western region of Darfur
to intervene in Sudan's affairs, an Egyptian daily reported Thursday.
'Foreign circles, conscious that a new phase has begun concerning the
problem of south (Sudan) in a healthy way, are trying to find a
substitute gate in Darfur to intervene in Sudanese affairs.'" (Agence
France-Presse, June 24, 2004)

"The United Nations has confirmed that humanitarian conditions in the
Darfur states have improved and that difficulties encountered in
delivering aid have been reduced," declares the regime-controlled Al
Sahafa [Khartoum] newspaper. (UN Daily Press Review, May 30, 2004)

"The Minister of Humanitarian Affairs Ibrahim Mahmood Hamid described
the report by the United Nations Human Rights Envoy [Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions] Asma Jahangir as
inaccurate and based on information she received without ascertaining
its validity. (UN Daily Press Review, June 15, 2004, Sudan Vision
[Khartoum])

"[NIF First Vice President] Taha accused the international media of
deliberately magnifying the scale of the humanitarian problem in the
region. He also claimed that the conflict was fabricated by the West."
(Agence France-Presse [Cairo], June 16, 2004)]

"[NIF President Omer Beshir] directed relevant ministries to distribute
seeds to Internally Displaced persons to make 'a success [of] the
current agricultural season.'"
(UN Integrated Regional Information Networks [IRIN], June 24, 2004)

But of course the planting season has already been missed for Darfur,
and Beshir's Janjaweed militia allies are responsible for burning and
destroying nearly all seed stocks.

Whence this shameless mendacity on the part of Khartoum? How can it
remain for US Agency for International Development Administrator Andrew
Natsios to declare yesterday of humanitarian access in Darfur:

"Despite frequent Sudanese government announcements about 'all the
things they've done to improve things,' virtually nothing has changed on
the ground. 'They've got to stop stonewalling the relief effort,'
Natsios said of the government." (Associated Press, June 24, 2004)

But this of course raises the essential question: why has the regime
"got to" stop stonewalling humanitarian efforts? This "stonewalling"
has been going on for months without consequence or punitive actions.
Indeed, Tom Eric Vraalsen, the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for
Humanitarian Affairs for Sudan made the point with emphasis over half a
year ago in December 2003, at a time when forceful and determined
international demands for humanitarian access could have saved hundreds
of thousands of lives now destined to be lost:

"Delivery of humanitarian assistance to populations in need is hampered
mostly by *systematically denied access* [latter phrase emphasized in
text]. While [Khartoum's] authorities claim unimpeded access, they
greatly restrict access to the areas under their control, while imposing
blanket denial to all rebel-held areas." (Tom Vraalsen, Note to the
Emergency Relief Coordinator; "Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis in Darfur,"
December 8, 2003)

More than half a year later the situation is fundamentally unchanged.
Indeed, despite a ramping up of humanitarian relief efforts, the
situation is in many ways worse. Reserve foodstocks have been depleted
in the intervening months, even as the international community has
failed to pre-position remotely adequate foodstocks in anticipation of
the current rainy season. Huge populations of Internally Displaced
Persons have been forced into concentration camps with no humanitarian
access, and are utterly at the mercy of the Janjaweed. The rains have
now begun even in North Darfur state, and roads are becoming impassable.
Not only is there not nearly enough pre-positioned food or medical
supplies, but humanitarian access reaches fewer than 50% of those in
need---and this percentage appears set to decline with the rains. These
are the factors that will produce casualties in the hundreds of
thousands; this is how Khartoum's engineered genocide will accomplish
itself.

Indeed, the US Agency for International Development has recently
released an extraordinarily important map that is in effect a guide to
the path of genocidal destruction (available at:
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/darfur.html;
discussed below). The map, representing cartographically the data
presented yesterday by Andrew Natsios to Kofi Annan, shows both villages
destroyed as well as the relative accessibility of known camps for the
internally displaced during the current rainy season. A terrifyingly
large number of the camps are designated as: "Internally Displaced
Persons camp not accessible during the rainy season, June to September."
The vulnerability of these people is total. For not only is there no
overland access, the areas are in many cases too insecure for a
humanitarian presence.

Khartoum remorselessly calculates that these people will die invisibly,
and that the bodies will be scattered or obscured by weather,
remoteness, and desperate flight For we must understand that not only
is no one coming to help these people, they have nowhere to go: their
villages have been destroyed. Eltigani Ateem, former governor of
Darfur, estimates that of the roughly three thousand villages ["it is
difficult to give an accurate count"] in all of Darfur: "To my knowledge
villages which have not been torched so far are a handful to the North
East of Zalingi [West Darfur] and some villages around Nyala [South
Darfur]; otherwise virtually all Fur villages have been torched. In
North Darfur all the villages of the indigenous populations have been
torched" (assessment received by e-mail, June 25, 2004).

Another assessment, from a Darfurian who works in a professional
international human rights capacity, reported the following details of
current levels of destruction:

"There are at least a couple of thousand villages in Western Darfur (an
area I am fully familiar with). This area has only four urban centers,
Geniena, Kass, Zalingie and Garsila. It is densely populated compared to
Northern Darfur. [ ] All the villages between Morni and Zalingie (more
than 60) have been wiped out during the last six months. Likewise, over
one hundred villages between Garsila and Zalingie no longer exist.

"The far western part of the region is known as Dar-Masalit (Homeland of
the Masalit). Most of the inhabitants of this part have long been forced
to flee to Chad (even before the advent of the SLA and JEM).

"[In South Darfur] almost all the Fur villages have been razed to the
ground, including some big one such as Shataya, Um-Labbasa and Mokjar.

"In Northern Darfur there are also over a thousand villages. [ ] In this
region over 300 villages have been torched this last year alone. These
are the Fur and Zaghawa villages." (received by e-mail June 25, 2004)

This is the context in which to understand the much-reported data on
village destruction released yesterday by US Agency for International
Development Administrator Natsios:

"US AID released updated figures Thursday saying satellite photos of 578
villages in the Darfur region found that 301 were destroyed, 76 damaged
and 199 intact. Two were determined to be old ruins. The U.S. agency
also obtained photographs of 87 villages in neighboring Chad, in the
area bordering Darfur, and reported that eight were destroyed, 24
damaged and 55 not damaged. More than 100,000 refugees from western
Sudan have fled across the border into Chad."

"Satellite photos show that about 56,000 houses have been destroyed in
nearly 400 villages in fighting in the Darfur region of western Sudan
and the destruction has spread into neighboring Chad."

"[Natsios] blamed the devastation on Arab militias known as the
Janjaweed which have killed and routed local Africans and are linked to
the Sudanese government. U.S. experts estimate that about 400,000 people
once lived in the 56,000 mud brick houses with conical-shaped roofs
known as tukels that were destroyed in Darfur, he said. Thousands more
lived in 32 villages across the border in Chad that have been destroyed
or damaged."

As important as these data are, they are clearly only partial; they by
no means represent complete census or assessment of the villages
destroyed. Moreover, we must also understand the significance of the
villages that have not been destroyed. In an inset to the US AID map,
one of the findings of a UN assessment team is reported:

"The 23 villages in the Shattaya Administrative Unit have been
completely depopulated, looted and burnt to the ground (the team
observed several such sites driving through the area for days.
Meanwhile, dotted alongside these charred locations are unharmed,
populated and functioning 'Arab' settlements. In some locations, the
distance between a destroyed Fur village and an 'Arab' village is less
than 500 meters." (United Nations Interagency Fact Finding and Rapid
Assessment Mission, UN Resident Coordinator, April 25, 2004)

This is further confirmation of the evidence of genocide, the systematic
and deliberate destruction of the African tribal groups, their villages,
and their means of living. It comports precisely with what was reported
by the International Crisis Group in December, and by many others
subsequently.

"Government-supported militias deliberately target civilians from the
Fur, Zaghawa, and Massalit groups, who are viewed as 'Africans' in
Darfur and form the bulk of the Sudan Liberation Army and Justice and
Equality ethnic base. [ ] The latest attacks [by the
government-supported Arab militias] occurred deep inside the Fur tribal
domain, against unprotected villages with *no apparent link to the
rebels other than their ethnic profile* [emphasis added]."
(International Crisis Group, "Sudan: towards an Incomplete Peace,"
December 11, 2003; available at
http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=2416)

****************

Until very recently, the world has refused to hear the voices that have
carried the message of genocide. The simple declaration of an African
tribal leader last December (2003), saying so much, went largely
unheeded:

"'I believe this is an elimination of the black race,' one [African]
tribal leader told IRIN" (UN IRIN, Junaynah [Darfur], December 11, 2003)

But there have been many other voices, and many reports recording these
testimonies of genocide. Amnesty International heard many of these
voices in its January 2003 research---numerous testimonies giving
terrible authority to the conviction of genocide (the report was
published on February 3, 2004; available at
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR540082004):

"A refugee farmer from the village of Kishkish reported * the words used
by the militia: 'You are Black and you are opponents. You are our
slaves, the Darfur region is in our hands and you are our
herders.'"(Amnesty International Report, page 28)

"A civilian from Jafal confirmed [he was] told by the Janjawid: 'You are
opponents to the regime, we must crush you. As you are Black, you are
like slaves. Then all the Darfur region will be in our hands. The
government is on our side. The government plane is on our side to give
us ammunition and food.'" (Amnesty International Report, page 28)

"A local chief in the Abu Gamra area, between Tina and Kornoy, painted
the extent of the destruction in his village. [ ] The Arabs burnt all
our houses, took all the goods from the market. A bulldozer destroyed
houses. [The Arabs] said the wanted to conquer the whole territory and
that the Blacks did not have a right to remain in the region." (Amnesty
International Report, page 20)

More recently (March 25, 2004) a "Briefing Paper on the Darfur Crisis"
was prepared by a group of concerned humanitarian workers in Darfur who
requested that the UN Humanitarian Coordinator bring their findings to
the attention of the international community. Among these findings:

"In spite of attempts made to negotiate, [the Janjaweed] make it clear
that the Government of Sudan has now given them a mandate to make these
areas 'Zurga free' (Zurga is a derogatory term for Black) and that they
represent the Government of Sudan in the area. Violence is
systematically reported, people killed (especially males), goods
including cattle looted, and houses burned. If people do not move
immediately, a second more deadly attack is launched, and civilians are
left with no option but to move away to the nearest 'safe haven,' which
is usually also attacked within the next few days." (March 25, 2004;
full report in original format available upon request)

Must not the idea of "Zurga free" areas remind us, with relentless
historical force, of the Nazi notion of a "Judenfrei Europe"? But
indecision remains on the part of the Bush administration, as testimony
yesterday by Pierre-Richard Prosper, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war
crimes, indicates:

"The United States sees 'indicators of genocide' in Darfur, Sudan, but
Darfur must be 'opened up' to the international community before that
can be confirmed, Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador-at-large
for war crimes, told the U.S. Congress June 23, 2004." (US State
Department document, at http://allafrica.com/stories/200406250141.html)

But what could be more perversely foolish than expecting that the
Khartoum regime, knowing of its own genocidal actions and knowing that
the US State Department has "indicators of genocide," will "open up"
Darfur? On the contrary, Khartoum is doing all it can to obstruct
investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
As Ambassador Prosper well knows, Khartoum has continuously deployed
substantial military assets, including aerial assets, to remove evidence
at various sites of atrocities, has removed bodies, has obscured mass
graves (the rains will help immensely in this effort), has re-located
various of the more notorious Janjaweed commanders to elsewhere in
Sudan, and has increasingly incorporated the Janjaweed into the regular
army forces. And certainly Ambassador Prosper must be aware of
Khartoum's continued obstruction of a UN human rights investigating team
in April 2004. Khartoum's "opening up" Darfur for a genocide
investigation? This is beyond foolishness; this is moral betrayal.

Not everyone requires more than the massive evidence that has already
come in the form of countless reports from within Darfur and the
Chad/Darfur border area. In the words of the distinguished Justice
Richard Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor for the International
Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, having reviewed
the findings of a June 23, 2004 assessment report from Physicians for
Human Rights:

"After all that we know and have learned from the last decade's
genocides and mass atrocities, it is unconscionable for the world to
witness these crimes [in Darfur] and fail to take steps to protect and
save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and
children. We owe it to the victims of Darfur and potential victims to do
everything we can to prevent and account for what the PHR report
establishes is genocide and reverse the intolerable acts of forcing
entire populations from their land, destroying their livelihood and
making it virtually impossible to return.'" ("Physicians for Human
Rights Calls for Intervention to Save Lives in Sudan: Field Team
Compiles Indicators of Genocide," June 23, 2004; at
http://www.phrusa.org/research/sudan/)

The Physicians for Human Rights report declares:

"Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) has gathered compelling information
that a genocidal process is unfolding in Darfur, Sudan. The terms of the
Genocide Convention commit parties to the Convention to act to prevent
when there are indicators that there is intent to destroy, physically or
mentally, in whole or in part, a group on the basis of ethnicity,
language, religion, or race [PHR here references the 1948 UN Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide]."
("Physicians for Human Rights Calls for Intervention to Save Lives in
Sudan: Field Team Compiles Indicators of Genocide," June 23, 2004)

The US Committee for Refugees declared on June 14, 2004:

"Khartoum continues its genocide in Darfur. The U.S. Committee for
Refugees again urges President Bush to exercise decisive political will
to stop the genocide and save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

"[USCR Executive Director Lavinia Limon declared]: 'The failure of
President Bush and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead the world to
stop the genocide is shameful and indefensible. It is not too late for
the President to act to save hundreds of thousands of lives, but time is
running out.'" (US Committee for Refugees Press Release, June 14, 2004)

At yesterday's extraordinary event in the Hall of Witness at the US
Holocaust Memorial Museum ("Bearing Witness for Darfur: Can We Prevent
Genocide in Sudan?"), Jerry Fowler, Staff Director for the Museum's
Committee on Conscience, noted:

"It's extraordinary that we're bringing to a halt the normal activities
of the Holocaust Museum to stress the danger of genocide today."

Fowler, who recently returned from an assessment trip to the Chad/Darfur
border, concluded by saying:

"The time to act in Darfur is now. It's now. The obligation to prevent
genocide is a legal one and a moral one. Too often in the past, as this
Museum starkly illustrates, warnings have been received and ignored and
the result has been death and suffering on a massive scale. It's time
for us to stop saying 'never again,' and start saying, 'not this time.'
Not this time." (transcript of remarks by Jerry Fowler, Staff Director,
Committee on Conscience, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, June 24,
2004)

Representing the International Crisis Group (Brussels) in testimony
before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (June 15, 2004), John
Prendergast spoke of unfolding "evidence of conditions of genocide," and
then declared that "in the International Crisis Group's judgment, the
situation in Darfur more than satisfies the Genocide Convention's
conditions for multilateral preventive action" (testimony at:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200406160578.html).

Africa Action launched a petition drive concerning genocide in Darfur by
declaring that, "the term 'genocide' [ ] captures the fundamental
characteristics of the Khartoum government's intent and actions in
western Sudan" (Africa Action Press Release, June 15, 2004). The
petition (accessible at www.africaaction.org/) now has over 15,000
signatures.

In speaking on June 18, 2004 to the question of whether Khartoum's
conduct of war in Darfur constitutes genocide, the highly authoritative
researchers of Justice Africa declared unambiguously, explicitly
referencing the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, "there is no doubt that the
answer is yes" ("Sudan: Justice Africa Analysis,"
http://allafrica.com/stories/200406180714.html).

In March 2004, then UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan Mukesh Kapila
declared:

"'The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers
involved' [said Kapila]. '[The slaughter in Darfur] is more than just a
conflict, it is an organised attempt to do away with a group of
people.'" (UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, March 22, 2004)

"'I was present in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, and I've seen
many other situations around the world and I am totally shocked at what
is going on in Darfur." (BBC, March 19, 2004)

[Of the ethnic slaughter Kapila declared:] "'Under those circumstances
one can only conclude that it is state-sanctioned,'" and that "war
crimes tribunals must be held to try those responsible for raping,
looting and killing in African villages in Sudan's western Darfur
region. [ ] 'The individuals who are doing this are known. We have their
names. The individuals who are involved occupy senior positions.'"
(Reuters [Khartoum], March 26, 2004)

What more can Ambassador Prosper and the Bush administration State
Department require in making a determination of genocide, or---more to
the point---deciding on a course of action governed by Prosper's
declaration that "we see indicators of genocide, and there is evidence
that points in that direction [of genocide]" (fuller quote from the
Washington Post, June 25, 2004)? Even finding "indicators of genocide,"
and "evidence that points in that direction"---with so many hundreds of
thousands of lives clearly at risk---obliges US preventative action as a
contracting party to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide (Article 1).

Such action must not consist of another UN resolution that fails to
include clear means for securing full and immediate humanitarian access:

"U.S. officials disclosed that the Bush administration was drafting a
U.N. Security Council resolution that would sharply criticize Sudan for
failing to halt the violence and demand that it grant broader access for
humanitarian relief workers." (Washington Post, June 25, 2004)

The last months have proved definitively that Khartoum will not respond
merely to criticism, and that any promises the regime might make about
improving humanitarian access are both meaningless and now woefully
belated and inadequate. The brazenness of the regime's comments on
Darfur (see above) have been fully matched by its obduracy in impeding
humanitarian access. As violence continues throughout Darfur, as huge
populations remain trapped in camps to which there is diminishing (or
no) access and within which there is exploding morbidity, as mass
executions and gang-rapes continue, as foodstocks become ever more
depleted, humanitarian intervention is urgently required.

Such intervention must both stop current violence against civilians by
bringing the camps under full military control, and reverse the effects
of months of genocidal efforts ("deliberately inflicting on the African
groups of Darfur conditions of life calculated to bring about their
physical destruction"). Ultimately the international community must
oversee the disarming of the Janjaweed or security will never return to
the rural areas, and agricultural production will not resume.

The US should, with as many allies as possible but alone if necessary,
introduce a UN Security Council resolution authorizing immediate
humanitarian intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. If this
resolution fails, or is stalled, the US should seek to create as broad a
coalition as possible to mount a humanitarian intervention without UN
authorization, invoking its contractual obligations under the Genocide
Convention. A final State Department determination concerning genocide
need not be made; a finding of "indicators of genocide" and "evidence
that points in that direction [of genocide]" is sufficient under the
Genocide Convention (Article 1) to obligate the US to "prevent
genocide."

The time-frame should be days, not weeks. The past months of delay,
acquiescence, confusion, and moral weakness must be brought
precipitously to an end. The current mortality data indicate that 5,000
human beings are dying every week, and that number is set to rise
precipitously. We must act with an urgency commensurate with the
crisis. Virtually all the deaths to date (pushing rapidly toward
100,000) are the direct result of a genocide that could have been
prevented; these alone should be enough to justify the most urgent
action.

But to our shame---again---we are already too late to save additional
hundreds of thousands doomed to perish from famine and disease no matter
what action is taken. It is our grim obligation to accept that even in
the face of such vast failure, we must act rapidly or additional
hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost to genocide.

Eric Reeves
Smith College