DARFUR IN PERSPECTIVE
By Professor David Hoile
Published by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Chapter 7
DARFUR, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HYPOCRISY
The simplistic characterization
used, for example, by Human Rights Watch of Arabs killing Africans
doesn't fit.
Human Rights Activist Alex de Waal [576]
All wars, and particularly civil wars, lead to human rights violations.
Civilians are inevitably caught up in war and are invariably its primary
victims. The conflict in Darfur has been no exception. The Government
of Sudan has admitted that there have been serious abuses of human
rights in the course of the Darfur conflict. [577] The government is also
cooperating with a number of UN protection-oriented agencies, with
British funding, in human rights training programmes for Sudanese
armed forces and police. The government has also opened Darfur to
human rights investigators. Numerous human rights delegations and
specialists have visited the region. These include the a United Nations
High Commission for Human Rights mission from 24-30 April 2004;
the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, Ms Asma Jehangir, who visited for several days in
June 2004; the African Human Rights Commission visited Darfur in
July 2004; the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Ms Louise Arbour, and the Secretary-General’s special adviser on the
prevention of genocide, Juan Méndez, 20-24 September 2004; the UN
special rapporteur on violence against women, Professor Yakin Ertürk,
visited Darfur from 25 September to 2 October 2004; Amnesty
International visited Darfur in September 2004; the five-member United
Nations commission of enquiry into allegations of genocide in November 2004; and so on. All have noted that there were no
restrictions placed on their visits.
And, as is so often the case in war, the conflict has been caught up in the
propaganda and misinformation that comes with it and that has certainly
characterised previous coverage of Sudan. The Sudanese government,
for example, has claimed that: “Those with their own agendas are trying
to give a very sad view of what is happening. The propaganda in the
west is trying to exaggerate what is taking place in Darfur.” [578) It is, of
course, essential that human rights are protected, and that those who
violate human rights are reported on and that action against human
rights violators is taken. It is also commendable that there are dedicated
organisations that focus exclusively on human rights issues. Sadly, all
too often, many of the western human rights organisations follow
political agendas set by a western elite that through prejudice or pressure
group politics badly serve the developing world. It must also be noted
that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms
Arbour, undermined her credibility and that of the United Nations, when
in her October 2004 report on Darfur she stated that she had “received
no credible reports of rebel attacks on civilians as such”. [579]
De Waal is right. Much of the human rights reporting on the Darfur
crisis, and especially that by Human Rights Watch, has been simplistic.
It has also been inaccurate, unbalanced and in some cases biased. This is
something which has not helped with analysing and by thereby seeking
to remedy, what is a complex situation. Human rights commentators, for
example, have not been able to differentiate between the activities of
government paramilitary forces, those of armed nomadic tribes or those
of the heavily-armed criminal gangs that roam Darfur. As a result there
have made unrealistic – and indeed impossible – demands on the
Sudanese government. Their continual criticism of the government for
not doing things that are in many instances beyond their control, which
adversely colour western international opinion about Khartoum, merely serves to discredit the western human rights community in the eyes of
the governments and people of much of the developing world. The
human rights industry certainly appears to have opted for partisan or
lazy analysis of events in Darfur, seemingly unable to resist projecting
the image of government-supported “Arab” – “Janjaweed” – militias
attacking “African”, Fur or Zaghawa, villagers (and in doing so often
merely echoing questionable rebel claims).
The United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur,
tasked to “to investigate reports of violations of international
humanitarian law and human rights by all parties” and “to determine
also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred”, provided a classic
example of the unacceptable shortcuts taken by the human rights
industry with regard to Sudan. The most obvious flaw was with regard
to the standard of evidence the Commission said it required:
In view of the limitations inherent in its powers, the Commission
decided that it could not comply with the standards normally adopted
by criminal courts (proof of facts beyond a reasonable doubt), or with
that used by international prosecutors and judges for the purpose of
confirming indictments (that there must be a prima facie case). It
concluded that the most appropriate standard was that requiring a
reliable body of material consistent with other verified circumstances,
which tends to show that a person may reasonably be suspected of
being involved in the commission of a crime. [580]
That is to say it chose to make findings based on material from which it
might said that a person – or entity – may reasonably be suspected of
having been involved in the commission of a crime. That this is an
unsatisfactory standard is clear, especially given the serious nature of the
alleged crimes. It was a standard, however, that the Commission did not
extend to others. The Commission demanded that the Government and
affected citizens of Darfur produce “concrete information or evidence”
to support their claims. [581] A large number of claims and allegations have been made regarding
events in Darfur despite the scarcity of reliable information. United
Nations media sources, for example, have noted “a lack of accurate
information on the conflict” [582] and Reuters has also stated that “it is hard
to independently verify claims by government or rebels in Darfur.” [583]
Human rights reports have consistently reported - and attributed - human
rights abuses within Darfur in circumstances in which independent confirmation of such assertions is impossible. The New York Times,
while echoing many of these allegations of human rights abuses, was
candid enough to admit that “it is impossible to travel in Darfur to verify
these claims”. [584] Claims of Khartoum’s control over the “Janjaweed”
persist despite increasing evidence that they are out of control. [585] The
absence of verifiable information regarding events in Darfur was a point
raised by Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Reporting to the UN on her return from Darfur, Ms Arbour noted:
“There is a great need on the part of the international community to
improve its capacity to collect, coordinate and analyse information and
reports of human rights violations. This is critical to ensure that we have
available empirically-founded concrete data if we are to counter the
rumours and manipulation of information that is rife in Darfur. Such a
capacity will be invaluable to the international community, allowing it to
assess trends and further tailor its response to the crisis. It will be
invaluable, too, for the Government of Sudan which clearly feels
aggrieved by what it perceives to be an exaggeration by the international
community as to the extent of the crisis.” [586]
Contradictions in claims by human rights organisations about events in
Darfur have also led to question marks about some of the serious allegations that have been made. While Human Rights Watch, for
example, eagerly chose to label the conflict as “ethnic cleansing” [587] and
have skirted close to using the “genocide” label, Amnesty International
researchers have said that observers should be “cautious” about
describing clashes as ethnic cleansing. [588] Such labels have also been
challenged by the United Nations and senior aid workers on the ground
within Darfur. [589] Nonetheless, the claims of “ethnic cleansing” have
echoed around the world.
Human Rights Watch: Questionable Sources, Questionable Reports
There is little doubt that groups such as Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International have once again relied upon questionable sources
with regard to Darfur. It has also been clear that in some cases their
analysts are partisan and their previous methodology with regard to
Sudan has been flawed. Human Rights Watch’s counsel and Sudan
researcher Jemera Rone has, for example, previously eulogised a
Sudanese rebel commander as “thoughtful…curious and intellectual”
and with a “respect for the rights of all”. This was in the face of the rebel
commander’s direct and indirect responsibility for massive human rights
violations including the murder, rape or torture of hundreds if not
thousands of civilians, many of whom were women and children. The
rebel eulogised by Ms Rone was also directly responsible for the
abduction of thousands of under-age children for use as child soldiers
and their transportation to Ethiopia. Nearly 3,000 of these children
subsequently died from malnutrition or disease: many more died as child
soldiers. Ms Rone’s eulogy was an astonishing statement for someone
supposedly concerned with human rights to have made and provides a
clear insight into the sort of anti-government bias that has coloured key “human rights” reports on Sudan. [590] Many of Human Rights Watch’s
claims about Darfur, and much of its analysis, must be seen in this light.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, Human Rights Watch’s reports have
been marked by their lack of focus on rebel abuses in Darfur. In its April
2004 report, Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan, for
example, Human Rights Watch devotes ten lines within the 49-page
publication to rebel violations of human rights claiming to have had
“limited access to information about abuses by JEM and SLA”. All it
reports, for example, is that in November 2003, JEM “apparently” killed
20 civilians in West Darfur and that in late 2003 the SLA “apparently”
killed a prisoner in a police station. HRW also states that both rebel
movements are using child soldiers. [591] What little did appear in this
report was stated to have come from “interviews” in Chad. HRW
researchers appear not to have been in touch, even by telephone, with
United Nations officials in Darfur. The UN information network, part of
the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - and active in
Sudan, publicly documented in July 2003, for example, that “SLA rebels
regularly attacked and looted villages, taking food and sometimes killing
people…The attacks present a real threat to people’s food security and
livelihoods, by preventing them from planting and accessing markets to
buy food.” [592] Neither do they appear to have even read BBC news items
reporting that the rebels had murdered nine World Food Programme
truck drivers, and wounded 14 others, in an attack on a relief convoy in
October 2003. (593) In the wake of this attack, the United States
government asked the Sudanese government for help with security and
access. [594] The following are just a few of the many publicly-reported
instances of rebel human rights abuses – just on aid workers alone –
which never made in into Human Rights Watch’s April 2004 report. InNovember 2003 the Government accused rebels in Darfur of killing two
of its relief workers and abducting three others in an attack on an aid
convoy. [595] One month later, rebel gunmen killed two other relief
workers and abducted three others. [596] Rebels also kidnapped other relief
workers with JEM gunmen admitted abducting five aid workers working
for the Swiss humanitarian group Medair. [597] On 11 February 2004, the
Equality and Justice Movement declared its intention to close down
every road within Darfur. Rebel attacks on relief convoys continued. A
senior UN official in Sudan stated in February 2004 that rebels have
made it too dangerous to take aid into parts of Darfur. Aid convoys were
still being attacked by armed groups. The spokesman also cited the
danger of landmines.” [598] The Sudanese government repeatedly held the
rebels responsible for blocking deliveries of humanitarian aid in
Darfur. [599]
Human Rights Watch’s August 2004 human rights “report”, Empty
Promises? Continuing Abuses in Darfur was even more unbalanced.
Its 37 pages contained one sentence alleging a rebel human rights abuse
– the “temporary” abduction of aid workers – who were then returned
“unharmed”. This was sourced to the United Nations. The organisation’s
excuse was that it had not been able to get visas for governmentcontrolled
areas of Sudan, and therefore was not able to report on rebel
abuses. The disingenuousness of this line is breathtaking. Human Rights
Watch has constantly relied upon second-hand or previously published
news items for the bulk of its “reporting” on human rights in Sudan.
Indeed the only rebel human rights abuse they cited in Empty
Promises? Continuing Abuses in Darfur was sourced to the United
Nations. As can be seen from the very small sample outlined above,
there are numerous well-documented human rights abuses – including
many sourced by the United Nations – which Human Rights Watchcould easily have included in its reports. That they chose not to do so is
telling evidence of the organisation’s clear bias and hence unreliability
with regard to human rights reporting and analysis.
It was also perhaps unsurprising that Human Rights Watch chose to use
British journalist Julie Flint as a researcher. Ms Flint, although
presenting herself as an “independent journalist” when speaking before
the American Senate’s foreign relations committee, is a long-time anti-
Sudan activist. [600] Ms Flint’s testimony was predictably light with regard
to rebel abuses. She did, however, admit that rebel attacks on
government targets “took heavy civilian casualties”. She mentioned that
rebels had abducted humanitarian aid workers but did not cite any of the
numerous instances of their murder. She stuck to the official position
that, despite having been provided with a “list of ceasefire violations and
attacks on villages” by the government and other groups in Darfur, they
were unable to investigate them because they had not visited
government-held areas. This has not, however, prevented HRW from
reporting as fact other alleged, government abuses within government held
areas. Ms Flint drew heavily upon her guided tour, by rebels,
through a rebel-controlled area of Darfur. Ms Flint and Human Rights Watch did admit that “It is…difficult to ascertain what exactly is
happening in a place the size of Darfur.” It is all the more difficult to
ascertain what is happening if one ignores numerous well-documented
accounts by journalists, United Nations workers and other nongovernmenta
sources.
Interestingly, it is also worth noting that, although Human Rights
Watch’s main Sudan researcher Jemera Rone went on record to criticisethe credibility of Eric Reeves, Flint has no such reservations. She
accepts Reeves’ claim of 400,000 deaths in Darfur, describing them as
“a serious analysis of mortality” in Darfur. [601] This despite the fact that
Human Rights Watch works with the World Health Organisation figure
of 70,000. [602] Unusually for a supposed human rights researcher, Flint
has also acted as an apologist for rebel war crimes, stating that rebel
human rights abuses, including the murder of aid workers, were the
responsibility of “rogue rebel commanders”. [603] In short, Ms Flint
provides a telling example of the sort of partisan anti-government
activist who so often double-up as “independent”, supposedly objective,
human rights workers.
Not only has Human Rights Watch been economical with certain facts, it
has totally misrepresented others. Its Sudan report for 2003, for
example, stated that Sudan “had backed out of peace talks sponsored by
Chad”. [604] It is somewhat difficult to reconcile Human Rights Watch’s
claim with that of the official Chadian Government peace mediator who
went on record in December 2003 to state: “There has been a breakdown
in negotiations because of unacceptable rebel demands. The talks have
been suspended: it’s a failure.” [605] This is only one of many mistakes and
omissions on the part of Human Rights Watch – but is certainly one of
its most significant in the slant it put on a crucial aspect of the Darfur
crisis. The same 2003 section claimed that Khartoum was “trying to use
southern militias, previously used against the SPLA, to fight in Darfur.”
This is another particularly off-the-wall claim.
Amnesty International and Darfur
Amnesty International’s reporting on Darfur has been similarly flawed.
In its February 2004 report, Darfur: “Too Many People Killed for No
Reason”, Amnesty International stated that it “had received very little
information regarding killing of civilians by the armed opposition the
SLA and the JEM”. Amnesty qualified its position by stating that “in
some cases, the armed political groups appear to have put the lives of
civilians at risk”. [606] This despite having mentioned in the same report
that the United Nations had reported regular rebel attacks upon, and
looting of, villages and the killing of civilians. Amnesty International
would appear to share the Human Rights Watch methodology of turning
a blind eye to independent, publicly-documented accounts of rebel
human rights abuses.
All of Amnesty International’s publications on Darfur have been
unbalanced and misleading. In Amnesty’s “Sudan Crisis – Background”,
it accepts, at face value, the usual rationale for the initiation of violence
in Darfur, that the rebels began the war as a result of “marginalisation
and underdevelopment of the region”. [607] In its April 2004 report,
Deliberate and Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Darfur,
Amnesty does not once mention rebel human rights abuses. [608] In its
lengthy 2004 report, Arming the Perpetrators of Grave Abuses in
Darfur, Amnesty devotes three sentences to the rebels. While calling for
an end to any supply of weapons, and vehicles, to the government, it is
silent with regard to supply of weapons – by Eritrea and others for
example – to the rebels. [609] And, in its December 2004 Open Letter to
All Members of the Security Council, Amnesty does not mention the rebels once. [610] Any semblance to objectivity and quality research that
Amnesty International may once have tried to claim with regard to its
work on Sudan was in any instance starkly contradicted by allowingdiscredited out-and-out propagandists and apologists for rebel human
rights abuses such as Eric Reeves to write on Sudan in their
publications. [611]
It is also worth noting that previous Amnesty International reports on
Sudan in general have been flawed by deeply questionable
methodology. Key reports have been largely reliant on newspaper
reporting – often utilising second- and third-hand newspaper accounts
by partisan journalists. In these reports Amnesty International’s lack of
professionalism was also been manifested by its turning a blind eye to
independent, reputable, first-hand accounts of rebel use of child soldiers
and the daily bombardment of towns. It chose instead to publish claims
made by rebel commanders. [612]
As so often has been the case in their reporting of Sudan, the reliabilit of the assertions of groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International should not be taken at face value.
The Hypocrisy of the Human Rights Industry on Darfur
In addition to often overt bias, and factual inaccuracies, on the part of
human rights groups, there has also been considerable hypocrisy with
regard to Darfur. While claiming that the Arab “Janjaweed” raiders are
sponsored by the government, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International ignore the fact that the government has regularly taken
very firm action against “Arab” tribesmen who have attacked “African”
communities. In April 2003, for example, Sudanese courts sentenced 24
Arab armed bandits to death for their involvement in the murder of 35
African villagers in attacks on pastoralist villages. Judge Mukhtar
Ibrahim Adam described the attacks as “barbaric and savage conduct”reminiscent of “the dark ages”. [613] In the same month, 44 tribesmen were
killed, and 22 injured, in a tribal clash between Arab and Massaleit
tribes in West Darfur. Police units contained the violence. [614] In a further
example of the government’s firm stance, in October 2003, 14 other
Arab tribesmen were also sentenced to death for the murder of non-Arab
villagers during attacks and arson within villages in south Darfur
state. [615] There is also abundant evidence of the sorts of lawlessness that
has plagued Darfur, including considerable “Arab” on “Arab” violence.
In one incident alone in May 2002 50 Arab tribesmen were killed in
such clashes between the Arab tribes. [616] (Would this qualify as
“Janjaweed” on “Janjaweed” violence?) A special criminal court
sentenced 86 Arab tribesmen to death for involvement in the murder of
other Arab tribesmen.
The stance of the human rights industry on criminal violence in Darfur
has been contradictory. Amnesty International, for example, has
previously criticised government inaction in responding to the violence
and banditry in the region. In February 2003 Amnesty International
stated that “government responses to armed clashes have been
ineffective”. [617] Amnesty has then condemned the government for taking
measures to restore order, such as arresting tribesmen suspected of
involvement in violence. [618] The scale of the violence had led to
Khartoum introducing special measures. Yet these have also been
criticised by Amnesty International. They, for example, have
condemned the special criminal courts created by presidential decree to
deal with offences such as murder, armed robbery, arson and the
smuggling of weapons., and the firm sentences these courts have subsequently handed down. [619] And at the same time these measures are being taken against the very Arab tribesmen that it is alleged the
government is supporting militarily.
The fact is that scores of Sudanese soldiers and policemen have been
killed in tribal clashes and while trying to apprehend those suspected,
including “Janjaweed”, of criminal acts. (Even Amnesty International
admits to as much in its more objective moments. [620] Many more
Sudanese policemen have also been murdered by rebels, often while
carrying out their job of protecting internally displaced peoples.
An Incomplete Picture
Another way in which the human rights industry has distorted
perceptions of events in Darfur is through often incomplete or inaccurate
analysis of events in Darfur and Sudan. The overriding goal for anyone
concerned about human rights should be to end the conflict that is
leading to human rights abuses. Merely focusing upon the symptoms
and not the cause is an inadequate response. In this respect, however, the
human rights groups have been very disappointing. Amnesty
International, for example, takes rebel claims about their motivation at
face value, asserting without reservation that the Darfur rebels “took up
arms in February 2003 to protest at what they perceive as the lack of
government protection of the settled population against attacks by
nomads and the underdevelopment and marginalisation of Darfur”.
Human Rights Watch unquestioningly echoes the stated rebel position
when it claims “Both rebel groups were formally created in early 2003
in response to the perceived political marginalization and chronic
underdevelopment of Darfur”. [621] Amnesty International would appear to
be unaware, and certainly have not noted in their publications, the view
of Sudan’s premier human rights activist, Ghazi Suleiman, about the
Islamist dimension to the conflict. In so doing, the simplistic analysis of groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch merely
serves to advance rebel propaganda and misinform those observers who
may rely upon those organisations for accurate information on this issue.
Rebel Human Rights Abuses
One of the reasons for the international community’s distorted picture of
the Darfur crisis – with the resultant flawed analysis and demands that
have ensued – is the under-reporting of the activities of the rebel
movements. Having by and large ignored large-scale rebel human rights
abuses in the course of 2003, human rights groups are now belatedly
starting to document their activities. Even the SLA has had to admit to
human rights abuses, accepting in early December 2004, for example,
that it had been involved in attacks on civilians, kidnappings and
obstructing aid workers. [622]
Almost eighteen months after they first began, Human Rights Watch is
now conceding that rebel attacks on towns in early 2003 resulted in
considerable loss of civilian life. Even Julie Flint had to admit, in June
2004, that “heavy civilian casualties” were caused during these attacks.
She admitted that the April 2003 attack on al-Fasher “resulted in the
deaths of numerous civilians”. [623] In its November 2004 report, in a
section entitled “Attacks on Civilians”, Human Rights admitted that “the
rebel movements have been responsible for direct attacks on civilian
objects in violation of international humanitarian law, and for causing
deaths and injuries to civilians.”
Rebel human rights abuses
have followed a pattern. They have included
systematic attacks on nomadic communities and the destruction of
numerous Arab villages. They have included the murder, wounding, and
abduction of civilians and the rape of women. These attacks on civilians
have continued despite the rebels having signed several internationally-mediated ceasefire agreements, including the November 2004 Abuja
protocol. In early December 2004, for example, the governor of North
Darfur, Osman Yusuf Kibir, accused rebels of attacking villages and
raping women. [624] In January 2005, the government reported that rebels
had destroyed eight villages and killed many civilians in attacks in South
Darfur. [625] Rebels have also carried out hundreds of armed robberies
throughout Darfur, and in so doing killing many civilians. They have
also been involved in the theft of thousands of head of livestock – the
very lifeblood of many of Darfur’s tribal communities. The Sudan
Liberation Army have also murdered several aid workers, foreign and
Sudanese, and abducted scores of others. They have also attacked and
looted dozens of relief convoys carrying food aid to Darfur’s displaced
communities. The rebels have also recruited and armed child soldiers.
Newspapers and human rights organisations have provided some
glimpses into the scale of rebel abuses.
A Snapshot of Rebel Human Rights Abuses:
Malam, South Darfur.
In its November 2004 report, Human Rights Watch provides the outside
world with a snapshot of rebel human rights abuses. It reported, for
example, on rebel attacks in and around one specific area – Malam,
located on the eastern side of the Jebel Marra, approximately one
hundred kilometres north of Nyala, in South Darfur. Human Rights
Watch has cited numerous examples of the murder of civilians, the rape
of women and abduction of young children by Sudan Liberation Army
rebels in and around this town, a location inhabited both by Fur and
people from the Beni Mansour tribe. SLA rebels have been attacking
civilians in this area – one of many in Darfur – since they began the war.
Human Rights Watch, for example, noted that it had received a list of
sixty Beni Mansour women and girls who were said to have been raped
or assaulted by rebels in attacks between 10 February and 7 July 2004 –but stated that it was not able to “verify” these claims. [626] In one attack in
the area, on 21 April 2004, the rebels killed ten civilians. Six more
civilians were murdered in an attack in nearby Um Dashur in early June
2004. Human Rights Watch also reported that in mid-June 2004 rebel
gunmen were said to have raped several Beni Mansour women near
Malam. Rebels attacked Malam again in October 2004, killing three
civilians, including a 12-year-old girl, and injuring several more. Human
Rights Watch stated that their apparent intention had been to loot. It also
reported that it had received a list of thirty-nine people, including two
children, said to have been abducted in the Malam area between 2
August 2003 and 10 July 2004, adding that their whereabouts remained
unknown. In January 2005, the United Nations reported that between 24
and 36 civilians had died and 26 others were wounded in fresh rebel
attacks on villages in and around Malam. [627] Rebel human rights abuses
in and around Malam provide the international community with
documented – albeit imperfectly – examples of rebel abuses in one small
specific area of Darfur. From all accounts it is a pattern of abuses that
has been repeated throughout Darfur – the vast majority of which have
gone unrecorded by human rights organisations or other outside
observers.
The Economist has provided us with an equally brief snapshot of rebel
abuses, in West Darfur. It reported that rebels burned down 12 villages
in the area of Ishbara, located some 120 miles north of Al-Geneina, in
West Darfur. They had “killed anyone who crossed their path.” Those
civilians who survived now live in the Wadi Bardi refugee camp.
Another five villages were said to have been abandoned by petrified
villagers. These civilians were from the African Gimir tribe, traditional
rivals of the Zaghawa tribe. The Economist reported that SLA rebel
leaders had stated that because the Gimir were rivals to the Zaghawa
they must therefore be pro-government, and that was why they were
attacked. [628] In reality, it comes down to inter-tribal – and in this case intra-African – rivalry. The Daily Telegraph, reporting on the same
attacks, pointed out that rebel “brutality at least equals that of” the
Janjaweed, and that the rebels “have received none of the international
condemnation heaped upon the Janjaweed”. [629] The Independent has
also reported on claims that the rebels were “driving Arabs from their
villages.” [630] It provided a glimpse of the ten thousand Arab villagers
packed into the Mossei refugee camp, near Nyala in South Darfur,
reporting on their claims to have “been attacked, driven from their
homes, and abandoned to face pending epidemics of cholera, malaria
and hepatitis. They say their persecutors are African tribes in league
with the Sudan Liberation Army, with their own campaigns of driving
out another community.” [631]
Even in their minimalist references to rebel abuses Human Rights Watch
and The Economist provides a disturbing picture.
Rebel Armed Robberies and Attacks on Road Transport
Rebel involvement in armed robberies of civilians and civilian premises
is clear. These have included any number of civilian premises, including
banks and other businesses. An example of a typical attack was that on
Yassin, in South Darfur, in January 2004. In this attack rebels looted
offices, commercial premises and the zakat (charity) office. In early
December 2004, the Sudanese government released documents
indicating that the rebels had been involved in 571 armed robberies
since early 2003 in the course of which they had killed 169 people. [632]
Rebels were said to have attacked over 200 trucks. [633] Human Rights
Watch also reported rebel attacks on trucks and the theft of “commercial
goods from trucks and vehicles in Darfur”. It also noted that: “These
attacks on civilian property are a violation of international humanitarianlaw.” [634] In November 2004, African Union ceasefire monitors confirmed
that the SLA had attacked convoys of Nigerian pilgrims on four separate
occasions in Darfur. In one attack on three civilian trucks, the rebels
killed seven people. Eight others were injured. [635] These systematic
attacks prompted an unprecedented intervention by Amnesty
International in early November 2004 which directly criticised rebel
attacks on civilians and humanitarian convoys. It noted that in one case
“Eighteen passengers from nomad groups were taken off a bus between
Niyertiti and Thur in South Darfur state by soldiers of the Sudan
Liberation Army…Amnesty International has grave concerns about their
fate. Thirteen of them are said to have been killed.” [636]
Rebel Theft of Livestock
The rebels have been engaged in systematic theft of livestock throughout
Darfur. Human Rights Watch has underlined the seriousness of these
thefts: “Given the importance of livestock as the primary family asset,
looting of cattle and camels can render the owners destitute. This is
particularly true for nomads who depend almost entirely on livestock for
their income.” [637] Human Rights Watch has stated that it has received
reports of SLA “attacks on convoys of camels that were being taken
across traditional trade routes in North Darfur”. These attacks had
involved significant numbers of livestock. Human Rights Watch has
provided the outside world with a few examples of these attacks. One
nomadic leader in South Darfur had reported the theft from the
Ma’aliyah tribe of more than 2,500 camels. In another documented
attack, in May 2004, SLA gunmen in Land cruisers attacked a cameldrive north of Atrum, in North Darfur. They stole 1,100 camels and
abducted 38 civilians – whose whereabouts remain unknown. Rebels
were said to have stolen more than 4,000 camels in the course of 2003 in
attacks on the nomadic Aulad Zeid tribe in North Darfur. These attacks
had involved the use of automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and
machine-guns. The rebels had arrived in Land cruisers and trucks.
Human Rights Watch mentioned that “many of the herders were killed
defending their animals”. [638] Human Rights Watch has called on rebel
groups to “Cease all attacks on civilians and civilian property including
livestock.” The three incidents Human Rights Watch reported are
probably the tip of the iceberg with regard to the scale of livestock theft.
Given the visceral seriousness with which blood vendettas and livestock
theft are taken, there is no doubt that attacks such as these have led to
considerable inter-tribal tit-tot-tat raids and violence to recover livestock
and avenge murdered tribesmen. Nomadic tribes would have raided the
communities and villages from which the SLA men would have been
drawn, as well as the villages in which they were harbouring. While, in
passing, documenting what may well have been the cause of a number
of reprisal attacks by nomadic tribes on tribes seen as complicit in
livestock theft, this has not in any way been reflected in Human Rights
Watch accounts of attacks on “African” villages. Human Rights Watch
attributes all such attacks as government inspired. This is one more
example of a critical failure in analysis by human rights organisations.
Rebel Attacks on Humanitarian Aid Workers and Relief Convoys
Rebel attacks on humanitarian aid convoys have been particularly
serious. These attacks have been throughout the course of the
humanitarian crisis in Darfur, and have gravely endangered the
delicately-balanced emergency feeding programme keeping hundreds of
thousands of civilians – many of them from the communities the rebels
were claiming to protect – alive in Darfur. Human Rights Watch has
called on rebel groups to “Cease all attacks on civilians and civilian
property including…humanitarian aid convoys.” The pattern of rebel
human rights abuses in attacks on aid convoys and workers is a clearone. The following are a random selection. They murdered nine truck
drivers, and wounded 14 others, in an attack on a relief convoy in
October 2003. [639] The following months, rebel gunmen killed two relief
workers and abducted three others. [640] Later in November JEM gunmen
admitted abducting five aid workers. [641] In early June 2004, Associated
Press reported the abduction by rebels of 16 aid workers. On 8 June
2004, Agence France Presse reported that rebels had seized nine trucks
loaded with relief items, medicines and tents on the road between Nyala
and al-Fasher. The rebels abducted four of the drivers. [642] Later that
month, rebels attacked aid vehicles and stole 57 tons of UN food aid. [643]
In the first week of July, the SLA attacked 26 aid workers, stealing six
vehicles and a large amount of cash. There were a number of systematic
rebel attacks on aid workers in August 2004. The African Union
confirmed that on 22 August, SLA forces had abducted humanitarian
affairs workers in the Abgaragil area, and that on 23 August rebels had
abducted medical aid workers in Kutum. (644) At the end of August 2004,
Darfur rebels abducted six aid workers in North Darfur. WFP
condemned the targeting of humanitarian workers. [645] On 31 August
2004, rebel gunmen detained 22 Sudanese health workers near Nyala in
south Darfur. A SLA landmine killed two Save the Children Fund
workers, one British and one Sudanese, in October 2004. [646] The United
Nations special envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk unambiguously confirmed
rebel involvement in these deaths: “It was the rebels who are responsiblefor attacking relief workers and convoys, they are responsible
for…landmines which killed two relief workers.” [647]
United Nations reported that in late October “forces from the rebel
Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) hijacked seven commercial trucks on a
road…east of …El Fasher.” [648] In mid-November 2004, the United
Nations reported several attacks on buses and aid convoys around
Darfur. Travellers had been abducted and killed and vehicles looted by
the attackers. [649] By the end of November, The New York Times was
reporting that the rebels had been “sharply ratcheting up attacks” on
civilian traffic which in turn was preventing relief work. [650] In November
2004 rebels attacked a joint WHO/Ministry of Health medical team. One
doctor was killed and four other health workers were injured. The team
was also robbed. [651] In November GOAL and the Spanish branch of
Médecins Sans Frontières withdrew from the Jebel Marra area in central
Darfur after “repeated” rebel attacks on aid personnel, vehicles and relief
supplies. [652] Amnesty International noted the pattern of rebel activity:
“over the past two months, a number of World Food Program
commercial trucks have been attacked in South Darfur.” [653] On 12
December 2004, rebels murdered two more Save the Children aid
workers, members of a mobile medical clinic travelling in clearlymarked
vehicles. [654] Rebel responsibility for their deaths was confirmed
by both the African Union and United Nations. [655] In addition to themurdered aid workers, one other worker was injured and three are still
missing. Rebel involvement in the murders was established by the
UN. [656] Rebel attacks on aid convoys continued into December. At the
end of December the United Nations stated that rebel forces had stolen
13 commercial all-terrain trucks leased to WFP and loaded with food:
“These thefts are in addition to multiple losses of commercial and aid
agency vehicles to armed groups in recent months.” [657]
Rebel Use of Child Soldiers
Human Rights Watch has clearly documented that both the Sudan
Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement use child
soldiers. It has correctly pointed out that “it is unlawful…to deploy
children as combatants, whether or not they were forcibly recruited or
joined on their own accord.” [658] The Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court classifies the use of child soldiers as a war crime. The
Independent newspaper has reported the presence of hundreds of child
soldiers, some as young as ten, with the rebels. [659] Human Rights
researchers in North Darfur in July and August 2004 observed and
photographed SLA child soldiers, some as young as twelve. [660]
Unsurprisingly perhaps, Human Rights Watch sought to contextualise
this blatant war crime, virtually presenting the SLA as juvenile social
workers. In a different report, however, a child eyewitness, Mubarak,
abducted from Kutum in southern Darfur, presented a different picture.
A former SLA child soldier, he stated that following an attack on his
school, rebels had abducted “several dozen frightened boys…and
marched them off into the countryside. The heavily armed men asked the boys if any of them wanted to go. Eight of them raised their hands
and…the rebels told them they could run away. Mubarak said he still
remembered the loud bangs when the men shot two of the escaping
boys. The remaining boys became rebels. ‘I had to join them,’ Mubarak
said. ‘I was afraid I would be killed, too.’” [661] The African Union has
also confirmed that the Sudan Liberation Army is arming and using
child soldiers. [662] The SLA is obviously aware that it is illegal to use
child soldiers. Journalists who reported seeing fighters who “seem to be
no more than schoolboys” who, when asked their age, reply with “the
stock answer”: “I have just become 18, sir. I am not a child soldier.” [663]
Air Power and Rebel Use of Civilian “Human Shields”
One of the issues frequently raised with regard to human rights issues
has been the government’s use of air power in its war against insurgents
in Darfur with the focus upon any resultant civilian casualties or
displacement. That governments reserve the right to use air power in war
is obvious. Air power has been used in every recent conflict – not least
of which during the Iraq war and subsequent occupation. That civilians
are often killed, injured or displaced during even the most clinical
bombing attacks against insurgents has also been amply demonstrated in
Iraq. The use of air power in Darfur has been no different.
That the rebel movements have wittingly or unwittingly drawn air
attacks upon the civilian population in Darfur is a matter of record. The
government’s position has been predictable. In November 2004, Reuters
reported government claims that “rebels…have drawn army fire and
aerial bombardment on to Darfur villages by using them as cover and as
bases for military operations.” A senior government security chief said
that rebels would often have camps next to villages, which were near
water sources, and on many occasions attacked the army from within the villages.” [664] Predictable or not, the government’s claims appear to have been at least partly borne out when SLA rebels subsequently admitted as
much when they revealed that the Sudanese air force had killed 25
fighters in a raid on a village in north Darfur. The village was 25 miles
south of al-Fasher. [665] A British television news item also reported on the
rebel presence within villages, in this instance Thabit: “This village is
full of rebel soldiers from the Sudan Liberation Army. Eight were
wounded in the bombing of Thabit. What happened here was an act of
war. But it was an act of war provoked by the rebels to make the
government look bad ahead of this week’s peace talks.” [666] Amnesty
International’s Benedicte Goderiaux has also pointed out rebel
complicity: “Of course it’s the government’s duty to distinguish the
SLA from civilians, but the SLA doesn’t help in making that distinction.”
[667] In a report to the United Nations human rights
commission, UN officials noted that: “There are some claims that [the
rebels] operate from or near civilian areas and rely on towns and villages
composed of certain ethnicities for support and supplies. This has
endangered civilians in many areas and appears to feed into certain
groups being considered as hostile to the Government.” [668]
It has also been claimed, and subsequently confirmed, that rebels have
been using displaced persons camps from which to stage attacks on
relief convoys and government officials, actions which clearly endanger
civilians by provoking a possible military response by government
forces. In October 2004, for example, the government stated that an
attack on a relief convoy 20 kilometres southwest of al-Fasher had been
staged from the Tawila displaced camp. [669] Security forces had also
discovered an arms cache near the Zam Zam displaced camp near al- Fasher. In late November 2004, the UN World Food Programme
reported that, on 21 November 2004, rebels attacked a police station on
the edge of the Kalma IDP camp. This resulted in the death of several
policemen. The WFP confirmed that “ominously, the attack appeared to
have been launched from inside Kalma camp”. [670] The Sudanese
government reported further examples of rebel use of refugee camps,
claiming in December 2004 that rebels were using a presence in at least
one refugee camp to target and attack policemen. [671]
Unbalanced, misleading and incomplete reporting, coupled with equally
misleading or simply inaccurate analysis, by human rights groups
confuses and misinforms international perceptions of the conflict. The
human rights industry has sadly been party to all these failings in its
reporting on Sudan. While all too often taken at face value in a handful
of Western capitals, such flawed reporting gravely undermines the
credibility of organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International in the rest of the word.
[670] “Renewed Fighting Shuts Down WFP Operations in North Darfur”, Statement by World Food
Programme, Nairobi, 25 November 2004.
[671] See, for example, “Darfur Rebels Attack Convoy, Police – Sudan Official”, News Article by
Reuters, 16 December 2004.
Footnotes |
 |
|
