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
|
 |
|
