Showing posts with label genocide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genocide. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Iraq tribunal hears defense closing in Anfal genocide trial

Sunday, May 06, 2007


Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Iraqi High Tribunal [official website] heard closing arguments Sunday from defense lawyers in the genocide trial [JURIST news archive; BBC trial timeline] of Ali Hassan al-Majid [JURIST news archive] and other former officials in the Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] regime. Al-Majid - Hussein's cousin known in the Western media as "Chemical Ali" - and his co-defendants are being tried for their alleged involvement in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds by using nerve agents and mustard gas during the so-called "Anfal campaign" [HRW backgrounder]. Earlier Sunday co-defendant Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-Tai, a former Hussein defense minister who was an Iraqi Army corps commander at the time of Anfal, testified that he had had no access to chemical weapons and had received no orders to use them, echoing testimony from previous defense witnesses [JURIST report]. Prosecutors have sought the death penalty [JURIST report] for Al-Majid and three other defendants and have asked that charges be dropped against one of the six total defendants due to lack of evidence. Al-Majid became the leading defendant [JURIST report] in the trial following Hussein's execution [JURIST report] last year.

According to defense lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano [firm website], previously one of Hussein's lawyers, the defendants are waiting for the court to rule on several motions, including a motion challenging the legality of the indictments [DOC text] and a motion calling for exhumations [DOC text] of the deceased killed during Anfal to allow for forensic testing. In a statement to JURIST, Di Stefano said:
I have filed a submission in order that the Defence is able to obtain its own independent forensic pathologist and toxicologist. The indictments claim that the victims were murdered using chemical weapons. No post mortum or autopsy reports have been furnished to the defence (and Court) proving that anyone died from chemical attacks. It was and remains unconceded that any such deaths occurred without proper admissible evidence. I have requested the court to permit the Defence to exhume victims and to be examined by a forensic pathologist. No response has been forthcoming from the Court.

I have filed a submission to be permitted for the defence to examine documents held by the Iraqi Survey Group and the FBI in its storage facilities in Qatar. No response has been forthcoming from the Court.

I have provided the Court with two documents [DOC text] from many of an exculpatory basis for Saddam Hussein which clearly show that Saddam Hussein ordered no chemical attacks or weapons to be used. He further ordered that villages be 'relocated' not destroyed as the documents show. It was for this reason that there was a rush to execution of Saddam Hussein as I would have introduced these and more documents in my possession to the court.

Finally, we have filed submissions regarding the vagueness of the indictments. How can anyone defend what I term a 'carte blanche indictment'? Iraq was accused of cheating at football but in this case the Iraqi High tribunal with the current form of the indictments have created a 'perpetual moving goalpost' to ensure the Defence is always hindered. I am well aware that in the Anfal case three defendants will be sentenced to death, one to imprisonment and one set free. It has been made crystal clear. Yet despite such all involved regardless of the sever handicaps and unfairness will simply proceed to do our best. Both Dujail and Anfal are being held in grossly unfair and unsafe conditions. It is for these reasons that I am prosecuting Judge Rahman in the UK and will do the same to any Judge in any jurisdiction if unfair conditions are imposed on the defence.
AP has more.

Jeannie Shawl at 11:13 PM ET

URL

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Holocaust Redux

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

"The only thing for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

----- Edmund Burke

The State of That Which Is

Such is the state of human affairs, whether in the present age or in those that came before, that not a decade passes without humanity resurrecting, in some corner of the globe, in some forsaken nation, the devastation unleashed by human wickedness. Whether mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, endemic rape, pillage, scorched earth and yes, even Holocaust, human wickedness prevails upon the human condition, leaving us impotent beasts in its wake, unable to control or suppress its malevolent tentacles, seemingly powerless to alter or halt its predictable and disastrous momentum.

The barbarity to which we are predisposed, to which we are unable to exorcise from our nature, is as common to so-called primitive peoples, those humanity likes to call "third worlders," as it is to those societies considering themselves modern and developed. There is no difference between suicide bombers and guided missiles raining down from the sky. Technology does not behold humanity to label the terrorism falling from the sky as nobler, or as more moral, than that of terrorism bred through poverty. Possessing vast wealth and resources does not diminish murder and criminality, nor the birth of, and continuation in, a new Holocaust.

The crimes against humanity that are thrust upon the world with a consistency that betrays our anemic ability to control our mammalian nature do not discriminate based on race, color, ethnicity or religion. We are free to unleash wickedness, whether our powers derive from the machete or the smart-bomb, the suicide bomber or the guided missile, the knife or the machine gun, from tribal conflagrations or nation to nation war. The consistency by which human wickedness is thrust upon our conscious cannot be denied, nor can it be ignored.

Such is the state of human affairs, and so little progress have we made in dominating our primitive mammalian behaviors, that even in the supposed modern world of today, even in the supposed enlightened nations of the West, the harbingers of mass destruction and suffering are spawned, planned and executed. For those bastions of morality and exceptionalism we call the First World have realized that war is as old as humankind itself, and as profitable as well, for the violence that creates war is ingrained into our instincts, embedded into the most violent species the planet has ever evolved.

War and its multitude of deviations, along with its many devastating aftereffects, has never been controlled or sequestered; its extinction has never been a possibility granted the predisposition to our impotency of willpower. This reality the lords of war understand well. As long as internal strife exists inside a nation, as long as racial, ethnic and religious hatreds are fomented and maintained, and as long as tribes or peoples or sects or beliefs are allowed to mature into full blown animosity and anger there will be war.

As long as there exists individuals addicted to power and wealth, as long as governments and special interests vie for control of territory and land, as long as natural resources have immense value and as long as money is valued higher than people there will be war. As long as there is uneducation, intolerance, oppression, poverty, injustice, inequality and exploitation there will be war. As long as there is profit to be derived, money and power to be made, division to be birthed, resources to be stolen, there will be war.

As long as there is war, that is to say death, destruction, suffering and misery, there will also always be crimes against humanity, for war is the virus that unearths human wickedness and unleashes crimes against humanity upon each other. Indeed, if our history books and our anthropological and archeological studies teach us anything, if they convey any warnings that we must heed, it is that humankind has possessed a propensity to destroy one another from the time our first ancestors hung on trees.

This propensity, this inclination towards violence against members different than our own group or tribe, is apparent by observing our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, with whom we happen to share 98 percent of our genetic code with, as they wage violent war-like battles between groups. It is apparent with every war modern man gives birth to and nurtures through our indifference and silent acquiescence. It is apparent with every act of genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, mass murder, rape and extermination, in all corners of the globe, regardless of time and space. From primate cousins to modern man, violence is a reality, and a curse.

For if this malevolence that possesses us were not ingrained in our core, in our behaviors and psychologies, if it were not part of our human condition, would it keep surfacing over and over again, irrespective of time, distance, space and peoples? If our propensity to unleash carnage and violence upon each other were not part of who and what we really are, would such a thing as human wickedness and destruction and violence even exist? Would war and violence and devastation upon our fellow human beings? In fact, they exist because they possess us like a miscreant demon, living within our nature, controlling our destiny and our lives, unwilling to escape or be exorcised from our condition, creating the most violent species to ever roam Earth. War and genocide and Holocaust exist for the simple fact that we exist, because war without humans is no war at all, because violence of man against man cannot exist if there is no man, because humans are impotent to rid ourselves of that demon called human wickedness.

Indeed, our species has been defined through war and its inevitable crimes against humanity. Lingering in our midst for hundreds of thousands of years, endemic to all civilizations, tribes and peoples, the human wickedness we seemingly resuscitate with every new generation is a symptom of our disease, the very sickness maintaining us from advancing forward as a species. Just when we believe ourselves enlightened or reborn, just as we think we have exorcised the demons within, just as we think a new generation of humans has defeated that which enslaves us to our passions, released again and reborn forever is the violence and the destruction and the suffering and the mass murder and the catastrophe that is war.

Repeating the pattern that has held us hostage from time immemorial, we believe ourselves enlightened enough to think that violence and war and crimes against humanity will settle our differences, instead of increasing our animosity and hatreds. We have evolved war, yet war has not evolved us. There is but one common denominator in the perpetual stream of violence, war and crimes against humanity we have seen repeated over and over throughout history – whether it be written or long forgotten – and that is us, human beings, Homo sapiens. For we remain prisoners of our own delusions, slaves of our self-proclaimed exceptionalism, blinded to the true nature of our existence by the comfortable glow of our most primitive myths.

As long as we maintain our delusions, our purposeful ignorance, our disastrous belief in fictions and fables, the reality of man killing man will endure, long into perpetuity, possessing our nature and our condition, concocting war after war, molding violence and destruction through the deadly mixture of our instincts, behaviors and mammalian predispositions. Until we finally decide to purge the grip of our self-deception, of thinking ourselves beyond the realm of our reality and truth, of who and what we really are, and not what we pretend to be, humankind will linger on in the limbo of self-destruction, living a fantasy that does not comport with our reality, granting ourselves small windows of temporary sanity, inevitably blown to bits by the destructive qualities we chose to ignore and not confront.

The predictable unleashing of our worst inner demons invariably destroys all that is achieved during the small frames of sanity we exhibit. For every step we take forward in our evolution, the demons called human wickedness takes us ten steps back. This demon has prevented us from progressing to the full capabilities of human thought and understanding. In the near future, given our level of technology and modernity, it might very well be the catalyst that sends us back to the Stone Age or indeed, buries us permanently under the rubble of our once-great civilization. If the pattern continues, so will the trend, and in time, so will our self destruction, for as John F. Kennedy once said, "If we do not put an end to war, war will put an end to us."

Only time and our willingness to alter inevitability stand in the way of where we are headed. Only humankind can put a stop to human wickedness. Only we can destroy that which is slowly, but surely, destroying us all.


Abandonment of Brotherhood


How does one even begin to examine the devastation that Iraq has become? How does one begin to contemplate what is now, thanks to America’s illegal and immoral invasion and occupation, an utter collapse of incomprehensible proportions?

What was once the nation, and the people, of Iraq has been transformed into an amalgam of carnage, blood, misery and decimation the likes of which the world has not seen since World War II, or Vietnam. Iraq has become a human catastrophe, a defeat for humanity itself, birthed not through tempests or tsunamis or earthquakes, but through the criminality, corruption and human wickedness of one nation. It has been humankind that has routed itself in self-debasement, our failure to act one more silver chalice in our trophy case of human wickedness.

It boggles the mind to even begin to fathom the suffering and misery of the Iraqi people, a collection of what was once 25 million human beings, the vast majority living in peace and apparent happiness, maintaining sectarian harmony, content with stability and security, living normal lives and cherished memories. The collapse of their society into chaos and anarchy has been one of the most spectacular crimes against humanity ever witnessed. Indeed, hell on Earth has been imported into Mesopotamia, creating, since the early 1990’s, a Holocaust that defies logic, reason and common sense, an evil so malevolent, so egregious, that its devastation will not cease until decades after Empire’s last throes have returned normalcy to the people of the planet. What is now seen as a debacle, as a failure, is nothing more than a malevolent crime of mass murder, rape and pillage, a crime against humanity itself.

The seeds of Holocaust were planted in the fertile soils of Mesopotamia, where the Tigris and Euphrates flow, where humankind was nurtured, feeding off the bosom of rich land and life-giving water, at the beginning and after the end of the first Gulf War. It was at this time that the Iraqi people, and not the government, were chosen to feel the collective punishment of the rising Empire, a nation so consumed by hubris and arrogance that, using its vast powers of persuasion and control, instituted a regime of devastating sanctions, most targeting the infrastructure, food and medicine necessary for the general welfare of the populace.

The decision was made in the upper echelons of governance during the Clinton administration to enact and enforce sanctions that were always known to harm only average, ordinary citizens, those that depended on the state for health, food, shelter and education. This conscious decision was made even knowing that the Saddam Hussein regime would not suffer as a result of the sanctions. Indeed, the regime of sanctions was aimed specifically at the Iraqi people, 25 million innocent human beings whose only crime was being Iraqi, their homes located above the enormous fields of the devil’s excrement. The Iraqi people were about to feel the wrath of the American Empire, enabler and disseminator of a new Holocaust.

Compounded with the complete destruction by aerial bombing of Iraq’s electricity, sanitation, sewage, food production, medical industry and civil infrastructure during the war, all using radiation-saturated depleted uranium filled missiles, artillery and shells, a nation once among the healthiest on the planet began to feel the aftereffects of disease, cancers, stillbirths and deformities. With little food supplies trickling into the nation, hundreds of thousands of children and adults began to suffer malnutrition, hunger and starvation. Soon disease and malnutrition, easily remedied by adequate supplies of food and medicine, began to take their terrible and debilitating toll.

This medieval and barbaric blockade, sponsored, enacted, enforced, defended and maintained by the Empire, began to rob 25 million Iraqis of nutrition, healthcare, education and of the standard of living that was the envy of the Middle East. Iraq soon went from having some of the most nourished children and adults in the world to having one of the most malnourished populations on the planet. One of the best standards of living in the Middle East was transformed into a cesspool of backwardness, a rotting and eroding society robbed of strength and vitality. Without adequate medicines, supplies and machines, their importation into Iraq being prevented by America, children began to die by the thousands every month.

Children became weak and anemic, their bodies and bellies turning to symbols of malnutrition. Immune systems were weakened, collapsing the body’s ability to fight disease, toxins and viruses. Those once healthy and strong now succumbed to easily preventable diseases and viruses, losing once vibrant energy, losing the will to live. Those once bright and intelligent had their development halted, for food and the energy needed to sustain growth dwindled. Children began to die in an epidemic of economic genocide, enacted and enforced by the American Empire, as always tightening the noose on the sanctions regime, as always caring nothing for the plight of millions of Iraqis. An entire generation of Iraqi children had perished, vanished from the Earth, never more able to play and dream and grow up, never able to experience the life we all strive to have.

After a decade of sanctions, up to one million Iraqi children had died, with 500,000 adults buried in graves as well, the products of easily preventable disease, the products of a nation not being allowed to have medicine, supplies and the necessary machines that can save lives. Close to 5,000 children were dying every month, to say nothing of those whose brain and body development became stagnant due to malnutrition. By the beginning of the 21st century, the American Empire had caused the death of 1.5 million Iraqis, spirits like you and I, never to take a breath of air or a gulp of water, never having the opportunity to grow old and enjoy the wonders of life, perishing in a war upon the Iraqi people they were impotent to wage war against.

The seeds of Empire had been planted, cast upon soils of genocide, watered with the blood of dead Iraqi children, winds of devastating silence spreading disease and viruses and cancer and mutations to all corners of Mesopotamia, affecting rich and poor, Shiite and Sunni, its invisible wickedness scattering itself into young and old, indiscriminately securing new victims through the inhalation of oxygen.

By the time new Pearl Harbors had been concocted by the Empire, by the time towers were demolished and the American people became the obedient warmongers of those cheerleaders pretending to be leaders, by the time Iraq had been chosen for destruction, invasion and occupation, up to two million Iraqis had died at the hand of the Evil Empire, victims of sanctions, a genocide in itself, a Holocaust by any definition, though only a precursor to what was yet to come.

The devastation of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has brought unfathomable levels of misery and suffering to the Iraqi people. The utter debacle that is Iraq, many would say the greatest strategic disaster in American foreign policy, has become a monument to human wickedness, yet at the same time it represents one of the most egregious criminal enterprises in the history of humankind.

For what transpires today, and what has transpired for the last four years, cannot be labeled as a mistake, or a lie, or a quagmire. What it is, indeed, what it has always been, is a crime against humanity, war crimes of the highest order, a conspiracy that has led to the collapse of Iraq as a state and to a creation of a Holocaust that will in the end, years from today – when combined with the economic genocide of the 1990’s, endemic disease and the radiation poisoning that will kill for decades to come – have cost the lives of anywhere from four to six million human beings, to say nothing of the refugee crisis, the mass displacement of people, ethnic cleansing, the loss of property, collapse of society, of lives altered, nation shattered and child development damaged.

The Iraq War represents humanity at its worst, with the elite of the Empire destroying a nation as an excuse to rebuild it, caring nothing for dark skinned Arabs, yet claiming contracts in the billions of dollars, as always designed to pillage the American treasury and rob the people. Meanwhile, the American masses have and continue to sit silently in lazy obedience and acquiescence while war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed in our name. Like the Good Germans of World War II, millions of Americans will one day claim they had no idea what was being done in Iraq, all the while knowing that comfort and gluttony helped maintain silence and willful ignorance to one of the worst cases of human wickedness ever to rise from the violent nature of humankind. To millions of Americans, the latest gossip from tele-trash and infotainment has more value than a Holocaust presently being waged by our government.

Where humanity once rose and was nurtured today only Holocaust, torture, mass detentions, mass rapes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, radiation poisoning, stunted development, miscarriages, hatred and dehumanization can be seen, as clear as sunlight, penetrating deep into the dark recesses of our conscious, wanting to stop blood from flowing and body parts from exploding, yet impotent and unwilling to put a halt to a nightmare Iraqis live on a daily basis and Americans only read about.

To be living in Iraq today is to live in constant and perpetual fear, unable to walk once tranquil streets, unable to shop in comfort, as always grazing bullets and bombs, unsure where explosions will go off next, afraid to be caught between warring factions. It is to experience an insecurity and a fear no American has ever felt inside our shores, of chaos, anarchy, of civil war where to be one religious sect and not another could cost you your life, and that of your family. To live in Iraq is to be subjected to daily car bombs and suicide bombers exploding in markets and streets, of having bullets whizzing by your head, of shrapnel attacking your every pore. It is to breathe the smell of death in every street corner, of feeling the concussions of bombs reverberating inside your home, and head.

To live in Iraq is to be unsure whether you will make it through the end of the day, if you will see another sunrise, another sunset. It is to see 70 percent of your children exhibiting symptoms of acute stress and traumatic disorders, not being able to sleep at night because the nightmare of what they have seen, smelled and heard cannot be exorcised from their minds. It is to see your child become a constant bed wetter due to the fear and insecurity that roams her mind. It is to see your son unable to comprehend the endemic death and bodies he sees trying to get to school. It is to witness as your child can no longer learn what she is taught, nor understand her schooling, as the fear and stress of living in civil war has become too much to bear. To live in Iraq is to realize that there are now 900,000 children who are orphans, their parents dead from a war that makes no sense, their tiny minds forced to confront the reality of being alone. It is to experience death firsthand, in large numbers, as no family left in Iraq has gone unharmed, without a murder of a relative.

To be Iraqi today is to see the most horrible deformities in young children, many mutated unlike anything seen before, a product of the invisible ghost of death afflicting expectant mothers, its radiation penetrating a body’s pores and bloodstream, traveling into placentas and embryos. To be Iraqi is to see cancer become an endemic reality, over the last fifteen years growing exponentially and methodically, inevitably claiming its victims with the tumors and infections caused by depleted uranium, becoming a silent killer that will last centuries, quite possibly altering the genetic code of your fellow citizens.

To be an Iraqi today is to realize that the professional class has left the country, becoming refugees in Syria or Jordan, a number two million strong, while one million more have become displaced within their own nation, ethnically cleansed by religious sects, forced to leave their homes, possessions and neighborhoods, forced to abandon both hope and lives once worth living. To remain living inside Iraq is to witness criminals control the streets and militias transforming entire neighborhoods and districts. To remain in Iraq is to live without doctors or medical providers, knowing that it has become too dangerous for them to stay. It is to see professors assassinated on a daily basis, many now having fled along with architects, teachers, engineers and state officials. To remain in Iraq is to see the shortage of professionals, to see that only the poor and those that do not have the money to flee remain, trapped in hell on Earth, in a land a devastation, of Holocaust.

The state of Iraq has now lost 1,000,000 citizens since the beginning of America’s war of arrogant ignorance began. In four years, one million human beings have died, an average of 250,000 every year, nearly 70 people every day. Combined with the two million people who have died as a result of sanctions, it can be stated that 3 million Iraqis have died since the early 1990’s. The carnage has only intensified, with bombings routinely killing 200 Iraqis one day and 150 more another day. Assassinations of military age men has become routine, found in the morning haze, bullet holes in the back of their heads, victims of America’s counter-insurgency, El Salvador-style tactics. Over 20,000 men, most of them innocent civilians, now saturate America’s vast gulag system in Iraq, held captive without due process, existing in limbo and uncertainty, in essence kidnapped from their homes or from the street, victims of American dehumanization and ignorance of culture. How many of these men have been or are tortured in places such as Abu Ghraib? How many have died while in custody, made to disappear, forever lost in some remote mass grave?

To be in Iraq is to be living in hell on Earth, a place so devastating, so horrific, that it has become the rule, not the exception, to see feral dogs eating from dead corpses. It is to see football fields become mass graveyards, mosques become mortuaries, and how missiles and artillery destroy homes and businesses, turning lives into rubble. It is to experience the rape of your daughter, the mental retardation of your son, the humiliation of your family, the invasion into your home by American forces, the dehumanization of American boots stomping your face, placing a dark hood over your head, taking your clothes off, calling you humiliating words, treating you like an animal.

Living in Iraq is to survive day to day, roaming city streets ducking bombs and bullets, possessing little money for food, lost in a sea of fear and uncertainty, unable to find employment, having two to four hours of electricity, an unworkable sewage and garbage collection system, having to spend up to three days waiting in line in order to fill your vehicle with gasoline. It is to have the smell of death permeate your every pore every single day, the smell of bombs and smoke and bullets becoming constant reminders of your closeness with death. It is to wonder if luck and fate will decide a car bomb will blow you to bits when you walk to the market, or whether a sniper will cause your head to explode like a watermelon. It is to fear an American contractor or soldier will decide your vehicle should be machine-gunned for fun and games, because it is cool to destroy the lives of enemies that are not considered human, and whether your son and father have had enough of the occupation and humiliation and will inevitably join the resistance.

To be Iraqi is to wonder if the world has forgotten your plight, if it even cares about the fate of millions of your fellow citizens. To live in Iraq is to see the worst in the human condition, to see human wickedness stamped with the seal of the United States. It is to believe life has abandoned you, wondering what you and your people have done to deserve America’s wrath and punishment. It is to wish for the nightmare to end, to wake up to normalcy, to security and peace, just how it was before, when Iraq was a model for the Middle East and the Arab world. You want to open your eyes and hope the last two decades have been but an illusion, a hallucination that does not really exist.

Perhaps you feel hope has been lost, that wickedness has triumphed, that Iraq will never be the same, that she is no more, that the land of fertile soils and running water has ceased to be a viable society. You think the occupation will never end, that America will be your master until the last drop of oil is exhausted, that the nightmare you have lived will only dissipate when the Empire is defeated by the resistance, or by its own over-extension and ignorance. You see a one-hundred acre fortress being built, larger even than the Vatican, the largest embassy the world has ever seen quickly rising from Iraqi ground, and you know the Empire will never leave. You see permanent military bases sprouting up alongside petroleum pipelines and you notice the pillage of your land’s oil through laws enacted by the Empire’s puppets and you weep for a nation destroyed from within, damned by the devil’s excrement, cursed by Western powers who for a century have only cared for the black gold lying below your feet.

Most importantly, perhaps, you wonder where the voice of the world has gone, in her uncomfortable silence, in her complete stillness, why she does not heed your calls for help, why she fails to stop the carnage and the destruction, why she has turned a blind eye to you and your people. You look to the heavens and ask why even in Iraq’s despair and suffering the world’s people have abandoned millions of her children to the greed and hubris of the rapacious Pax Americana. You ask fate why the American people have done nothing to stop this new Holocaust from continuing, why they casually ignore the plight of Iraqis, why they continue their blissful ignorance of reality. You ask why the death of millions of Iraqis is hardly mourned, why the maiming and psychological devastation of her children is ignored, why her implosion as a state and as a people is hidden from the beautiful minds of Americans.

In the end, you ask yourself how a nation that mourns the tragic loss of thirty-two college students, with wall to wall media coverage, with flags flying at half staff nationwide, with services held from coast to coast, rarely, if ever, cares to even blink at the death and horrible misery of millions of Iraqis, or offer the same mourning, memorials and media coverage to the death, and memory, of nearly 3,500 of its sons and daughters. You ask how it is not understood by the people of the world that Iraq loses in one month what America lost in one day, on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 innocent victims of state terrorism and psychological war were murdered.


Holocaust Redux


It is reality, not hyperbole, to describe what is presently happening in Iraq as a new Holocaust, a new paradigm of devastation and destruction, of mass murder and horrific suffering. An entire nation has been made to implode, an entire society has been disemboweled, its vital organs gutted and spilled into hell on Earth. The blood of one million Iraqis covers her streets, the severed body parts of the maimed pile up on her corners, and the severed psychology of her youth lies in tatters. Iraq’s entire society is in disarray, her upper and middle classes having fled her bosom, living the life of refugees, her poor and working classes trapped in an inferno from which escape is but a wishful dream.

Disease and radiation poisoning, those silent assassins that kill and murder in clandestine pleasure, those unleashed poisons imported by the Empire, have and will continue to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraq’s poorest and weakest individuals. For like the gas chambers of yesteryear, radiation poisoning from depleted uranium, along with the Empire’s destruction of sanitation, sewer and civil infrastructure, will, in the end, kill countless and as yet untold numbers of Iraqis, most forced to suffer sickness and cancer, deformity and miscarriage, misery and death.

For a Holocaust does not need toxic chambers to count its dead, nor crematoriums to hide its victims. It does not depend on concentration camps to starve its prisoners, nor barbed wire to hide the truth. Deadly poison can be released into the air, penetrating soil, crops, water and food, slowly penetrating human bodies, killing from within. It can be created by the destruction of the infrastructure needed to contain and fight off infection, disease and outbreaks. Holocaust exists in sanctions that refuse to let in vital medicines and food, it exists in making the Iraqi nation itself into an enormous concentration camp. Holocaust can be flamed by the dropping of bombs, missiles or artillery into homes and neighborhoods. Holocaust can be created, molded and furthered by causing civil war among religious sects, using counter-insurgency machinations to divide and conquer, caring nothing for the plight of millions caught in the crosshairs of a societal collapse engineered by the Empire’s war architects. In the end, the result is the same, whether a Holocaust is molded by Nazis or nurtured by the Empire itself. The only reality that changes is the method to the madness and the cast of characters for whom the flame of humanity has long since ceased to exist.

What the world is seeing today, for those few who care to see and disturb their beautiful minds, is a carnage and a devastation that fits the pattern of Holocaust throughout humankind’s brief reign on the planet. The Iraq Holocaust, while still not apparent to all, while still hidden from the conscious of the world, while still taking place even today, is but another manifestation of a pattern that is all too familiar to the human condition.

For no ethnic minority or religious group can claim a monopoly on Holocaust, no matter how convenient it has become, no matter how beneficial its incantation and remembrance may be. Holocaust is an all-inclusive devastation, a human wickedness that preys upon all peoples, throughout all time and space, whether they be from 20th century Armenia, Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines, Uganda, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or World War II’s wickedness, which killed tens of millions in Russia and more than a dozen in Germany and Eastern Europe. The term Holocaust is not exclusive to any one particular group, nor can its use be defined by Empire's propagandists or by history’s victors.

Of course the Empire will never call what is happening in Iraq a Holocaust, for to do so would criminalize the very enterprise of destroying a nation and its people for the purpose of controlling its vast oil fields. To call the Iraq Holocaust by its rightful name would be to make war criminals of its architects, its boosters, its propagandists, its stenographers and its military leaders. It would be to place the Empire on par with some of the worst atrocities of the vanquished Nazi regime, creating comparisons between warmongers and leaders of different eras. To call what is happening in Iraq by its proper term would be to make tens of millions of American citizens the equivalent of yesterday’s good Germans. To allow the use of the term Holocaust to describe present day Iraq, America would risk the shame and scorn of the people of the world, becoming a pariah nation, a rogue state, and a failed people.

The Empire will never allow the term Holocaust to be used alongside the reality, and devastation, of Iraq. The truth of what has been done and continues to be unleashed upon Iraqis will, as always, be whitewashed and made to be hidden in a dark, dank recess of history’s uncomfortable dirty little secrets. In time, even though the magnitude of what transpired in Iraq will become known to some, its truth will be suppressed, its reality contorted, its victims soon forgotten. Just as three to four million dead Vietnamese were erased from uncomfortable memories, just as that Holocaust was a reality that never took place, so too will the Iraq Holocaust dissipate from our conscious, to be replaced by the dumbed-down heroin of tele-trash, the addiction of infotainment, usurped by the only Holocaust that ever took place, the only one that matters, the only mass murder that must remain ingrained in our memories, never allowed to be replaced, never allowed to be forgotten.

Yet to the Iraqi people, to those that will invariably survive the catastrophe that has been imported to their land, the Iraqi Holocaust will remain an all too real calamity, a truth that exists in rubble, in mass graves, in the memory of lost souls and never forgotten memories. To these human beings, the millions that have already died, along with the millions that have yet to perish, will never be forgotten, becoming a reality ignored by the world, yet remaining entrenched like a small flame inside the hearts of survivors. Every deformity or mutation of Iraqi babies will remind survivors of the poisons unleashed by the Empire. Every death caused by malignant cancer and disease will bring back memories of dropped bombs and devastating guided missiles. Every scar, burn and amputated limb will forever become a horrific and eternal memory and reminder that cannot be erased from one’s brain, their grotesque appearance becoming a time machine of suffering and misery. Seared in their minds for decades and centuries to come, the Iraq Holocaust and its creator will never be forgotten, to be passed down to each new child born, to each new generation.

In time the present collapse and corruption of humanity, the present entanglement of human wickedness, this thing called Holocaust, which we as a species always vow to never again repeat, will predictably be replaced by another such tragedy. In time that new horror will itself be replaced by yet another. The cycle of violence will continue, just as it has always been, just as it will always be, for its viciousness has never been stopped, its demons have never been controlled. We are slaves to its demands, mere weaklings to its call to arms. Impotent we have been from the very beginning, from the genesis of humankind, passing enlightenments, reformations, renaissance and modernity, and still today it cannot be defeated, still we have failed to free ourselves from its omnipotent grip. Every century that passes we fall prey to its temptations and its cruelty, its brief rewards and long-term curse.

Today, in every corner of the globe, in every continent where man exists the genesis of the next Holocaust is being birthed. Somewhere, someplace, the next Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Bush is being nurtured by hate or anger, feeding off the breast of intolerance and ideology, living among corruption of morality, breeding in the self a taste for psychotic narcissism. For it is a given that wherever man settles in, death, destruction, extermination and devastation soon follows. It is written in our history books, in stone tablets, in our cultures and ruined cities. Its warnings and lessons are everywhere, if only we wished to look. It is wired into our human condition. It remains a virus afflicting our conscious, never exorcised, always resurrected.

Somewhere, someplace, a leader is being molded among men, as always infected in delusion, infested with selfishness, though possessing the qualities of attraction, of leadership, of hypnotizing thousands through stare and voice. It is this human being, like so many that have come before, that will recruit a group of like minded individuals, each, like him, with an insatiable thirst for power, immoral in character, criminal in personality, in time concocting power grabs and debasement of the human condition.

It is from these so-called leaders of men, these alpha males, from where human wickedness derives, flowing from its oasis of hate, through rivers of unending blood and carnage. For mostly, throughout time, it is the warmongers, the war-like leaders that create the devastation and destruction called Holocaust. It is from war-like leaders that war-like people are created. It is from them where human wickedness derives, passing from person to person like a virus, making monsters of us all.

Such is the state of human affairs that one Holocaust will give rise to another, and another after that, filling a century of civilization with systematic death and murder. Its consistency is overwhelming, clear as day to see, for those willing to confront uncomfortable realities. For every step forward we take, our self-destructive ways push us back ten, committing us to the primitiveness that has yet to be surpassed and the mammalian behaviors we have yet to understand. The human wickedness will continue until we reach an enlightenment of who and what we truly are, escaping the machinations and institutions that spawn hatred, injustice, inequality, anger, division, bigotry, animosity, oppression, ignorance and poverty.

From where will the next Holocaust be born, ruining land and people, corrupting humankind ever more? When will humanity say enough is enough, never again, and actually mean it? Will it be when we put an end to war and human wickedness, or when war and human wickedness put an end to us? In the meantime, the seeds of the next act of human devastation are today being planted. Where, we wonder, will this wicked weed grow next? For where can be anywhere, and anywhere can be gone tomorrow.

In Iraq we find the answer, for its shows where we have been, where we at present are and where we will again, and inevitably, soon be.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Manuel Valenzuela | 12:37 PM

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Bush’s Sudan Ambassador: There Is No Genocide in Darfur

UPDATE - April 13, 2007 - Editor's note: I am posting at the overflow blog(also see yesterday's articles below and at the secondary blog).
---
Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog(also new articles below and yesterday's postings at the overflow blog).
---
Anything coming from the Bush gang is generally a lie. In this case however it is a convenient truth. The Israelis and neocons want Sudan partitoned, meaning severely weakened, as they are accomplishing in Iraq.
Related
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
---
February 8, 2007

Natsios describes on-going Sudanese crisis

by Mariam Khan


Editors’ note: This article has been corrected. The original article contained substantial inaccuracies.

The on-going Darfur crisis is no longer a genocide situation, according to U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios. Natsios, a Professor in the School of Foreign Service, spoke on Wednesday in Gaston Hall.

Natsios did note, however, that genocide had previously occured in Darfur, amidst the ongoing conflict between inhabitants of the Sadanese region and government-backed Janjaweed militias.

Darfur has been a hot button issue since 2003. 2.5 million people have been displaced and over 400,000 people have died as a result of the conflict, according to Natsios.

“The place is littered with mass graves,” he said. Over 2,000 villages were destroyed from the beginning of the war in 2003 to the present, according a United Nations count cited by Natsios.

Natsios pointed to property issues as a major aspect of the conflict, explaining that the Arab Janjaweed militia has been destroying homes and taking the land and animals.

“Without property in Darfur, you will die,” he said. “You cannot go back to your homes because you have nothing to live off of.”

Natsios called Darfur a catastrophe, but said that he is opposed to continuing to use the word genocide, which President Bush and the State Department use to describe the situation in Darfur.

“The term genocide is counter to the facts of what is really occurring in Darfur,” he said.

“The humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the everyday suffering of children, females and males, is beyond imagination,” Azanaw Mengistu (COL ’09), a STAND member who attended the lecture, said. “Every day millions of Darfurians are losing hope and the international community’s response has been unfortunately disappointing.”

Eric Wind (SFS ’09) agreed that the situation was dire, but his motives for attending the speech were slightly different.

“As a Christian, I condemn the human rights abuses going on in Darfur,” he said. “I hope that the efforts of Ambassador Natsios, world leaders and non-governmental organizations such as STAND will help end unnecessary bloodshed in Darfur.”

Natsios said that the proposed deployment of 10,000 more United Nations troops, along with extensive negotiations, is the next step in ending the conflict.

“If a negotiated approach does not work, then we have to go to Plan B.”

Natsios would not comment on the details of “Plan B” but said that it would involve drastic measures by the United States.
---
Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan

Friday, March 30, 2007

Fallujah Fears a 'Genocidal Strategy'

IRAQ:

Ali al-Fadhily*

FALLUJAH, Mar 30 (IPS) - Iraqis in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad are reporting regular killings carried out by U.S. forces that many believe are part of a 'genocidal' strategy.

Since the mysterious explosion at the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samara in February last year, more than 100 Iraqis have been killed daily on average, without any forceful action by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military to stop the killings.

U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces working with them are also executing people seized during home raids and other operations, residents say.

"Seventeen young men were found executed after they were arrested by U.S. troops and Fallujah police," 40-year-old Yassen of Fallujah told IPS. "My two sons have been detained by police, and I am terrified that they will have the same fate. They are only 17 and 18 years old."

Residents of Fallujah say the local police detention centre holds hundreds of men, who have had no legal representation.

Others are killed by random fire that has long become routine for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Sa'ad, a 25-year-old from the al-Thubbat area of western Fallujah was killed in such firing.

"The poor guy kept running home every time he saw U.S. soldiers," a man from his neighbourhood, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "He used to say: Go inside or the Americans will kill you." Sa'ad is said by neighbours to have developed a mental disability.

He was recently shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when they opened fire after their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb.

Last week, U.S. military fire severely damaged the highest minaret in Fallujah after three soldiers were killed in an attack. What was seen as reprisal fire on the minaret has angered residents.

"They hate us because we are Muslims, and no one can argue with that any more," 65- year-old Abu Fayssal who witnessed the event told IPS. "They say they are fighting al- Qeada but they are only capable of killing our sons with their genocidal campaign and destroying our mosques."

Others believe occupation forces have another sinister strategy.

"It is our people killing each other now as planned by the Americans," Abdul Sattar, a 45- year-old lawyer and human rights activist in Fallujah told IPS. "They recruited Saddam's security men to control the situation by well-known methods like hanging people by their legs and electrifying them in order to get information. Now they are executing them without trial."

IPS has obtained photographs of an elderly man who residents say was executed last month by U.S. soldiers.

"Last month was full of horrifying events," a retired police officer from Fallujah told IPS. "Three men were executed by American soldiers in the al-Bu Issa tribal area just outside Fallujah. One of them was 70 years old and known as a very good man, and the others were his relatives. They were asleep when the raid was conducted."

Another three men from the same tribe were executed similarly in ar-Rutba town near the Jordanian border. Their tribe did not carry out the usual burial ceremony for fear that more people would be killed. Instead, a cousin performed a religious ceremony in Amman in Jordan.

"Seven people were executed in al-Qa'im recently, at the Syrian border," Khalid Haleem told IPS on telephone from al-Qa'im. "They were gathering at a friend's place for dinner when Americans surrounded the house, with armoured vehicles with helicopters covering them from the air. Those killed were good men and we believe the Americans were misinformed."

Adding to the violence are U.S.-backed Shia militias which regularly raid Sunni areas under the eyes of the U.S. and Iraqi army. Residents of Fallujah, Ramadi, and especially Baghdad have regularly reported to IPS over the last two years that Shia militiamen are allowed through U.S. military cordons into Sunni neighbourhoods to conduct raids.

Last month, residents report, more than 100 men aged 20 to 40 were executed by Shia militias in Iskandariya 40 km south of Baghdad and Tal Afar 350 km northwest of the capital. Another 50 were detained by the Iraqi Army's fifth division, that many believe is the biggest death squad in the country.

A U.S. military spokesperson in Baghdad told IPS that their troops "use caution and care when conducting home raids" and "in no way support Shi'ite death squads and militias."

In the face of the U.S.-backed violence, most Iraqis now openly support attacks against occupation forces.

"The genocidal Americans are paying for all that," a young man from Fallujah told IPS. "They seem to be in need of another lesson by the lions of Fallujah and Anbar." He was referring to the intensive resistance attacks in and around Fallujah that have killed dozens of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers this month.

According to the U.S. military, at least 1,194 U.S. soldiers have died in al-Anbar province since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The number is far higher than in any other province in Iraq.

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The International Law of Genocide: The case of Palestine

Mar 28, 2007

By James Risser
james.risser@gmail.com

In response to a comment that queried the existence of an active genocidal project on-going in Palestine, I have decided to write this brief diary on the subject, listing the relevant statutory language from the International Criminal Court and their definitions of the terms.

This is what the international crime of genocide is, as defined by the International Criminal Court. I shall leave it up to reader to render an opinion on whether the Palestinians are suffering from it or not. Of course, this same set can also be applied to the Iraqis under American occupation as well. So, it is directly relevant to any prosecution of the Bush Crime Family for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran (forthcoming).

Of course, America is not a signatory to the ICC.

Needless to say, there is no requirement that a signatory be charged with all five articles; a standard indictment may only have, say, Article 6(e) should children be transferred from one canton to another, or from one village to another, for example.

Note: the ICC begins footnoting this section with 2 and not 1; i have retained their numbering scheme.

Article 6

Genocide

Introduction

With respect to the last element listed for each crime:

–The term "in the context of" would include the initial acts in an emerging pattern;– The term "manifest" is an objective qualification;

– Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis.


Article 6 (a)
Genocide by killing

Elements

  1. The perpetrator killed[fn 2] one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (b)
Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm

Elements

  1. The perpetrator caused serious bodily or mental harm to one or more persons.[fn 3]
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.


Article 6 (c)
Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction

Elements

  1. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.[fn 4]
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (d)
Genocide by imposing measures intended to prevent births

Elements

  1. The perpetrator imposed certain measures upon one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The measures imposed were intended to prevent births within that group.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (e)
Genocide by forcibly transferring children

Elements

  1. The perpetrator forcibly transferred one or more persons.[fn 5]
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The transfer was from that group to another group.
  1. The person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
  1. The perpetrator knew, or should have known, that the person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

________________
[fn 2] The term "killed" is interchangeable with the term "caused death".

[fn 3] This conduct may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, acts of torture, rape, sexual violence or inhuman or degrading treatment.

[fn 4] The term "conditions of life" may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.

[fn 5] The term "forcibly" is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Stop the Killing in Darfur! (I'm Sorry, I Mean Iraq)

Mar 27 2007 - 1:42pm

Yesterday's story from the BBC about the carnage visited on Iraq by the war-criminal from Crawford was widely ignored today:

Another story about Darfur from Saturday also got scant attention:

Put them together and here's what you get:

Berlin 27th March: Meeting here to celebrate the EU's 50th birthday, EU leaders are being asked whether they will finally take meaningful action on the genocide unfolding in Darfur (I'm sorry that should read: Iraq). Darfur (or rather Iraq) has been under attack since 2003 when the government of the Sudan (I'm sorry that should read: the US) invaded it on transparently trumped-up pretexts. The motivation of the Sudanese (again that should read: US) government, appears to be control of oil in the region.

According to experts, at least 200,000 people have been slaughtered by Sudanese (correction: US) forces. The number is growing by the day. Sudanese (I mean of course US) estimates of the number killed by their forces is drastically lower, with most Sudanese (or rather US) sources putting the figure at around 30,000. As many as 400,000 more Sudanese (which is to say, Iraqis) have been killed in the ongoing Muslim-on-Muslim civil war, triggered by the trumped-up invasion. In addition over 2 million Sudanese (yup, I know - Iraqi!) refugees have been forced to flee the fighting, which is now chronically over-extending the resources of neighboring states.

Although the actions of the Sudanese (I'm so sorry, I mean the US) government would seem to meet international definitions of genocide, no action has been taken by the EU or the UN, beyond formal protests. In addition the Sudanese (shit, shit the US!) government has blocked any UN role in the region; and UN resolutions are followed or ignored by the Sudanese (OK, OK the US!) government as it pleases.

In any case, as EU leaders point out, the US government (hey, I FINALLY got it right!) cannot possibly be guilty of genocide in Iraq or anywhere else, since its leaders are overwhelmingly rich and white.

Tony Blair was unavailable for comment as he was communing with his Savior (and his lawyers).

PS: The paperback of my novel The Messiah of Morris Avenue just came out. Please check it out.

by Tony Hendra permalink
_______
Besth

About author Tony Hendra, author of the international best-seller Father Joe, attended Cambridge University where he performed with Pythons-to-be John Cleese and Graham Chapman. He was an original editor of The National Lampoon and editor-in-Chief of Spy. He also played Ian Faith in This is Spinal Tap. His current book The Messiah of Morris Avenue, a novel, is available online and in all bookstores. You can check it out at http://www.henryholt.com/messiahofmorrisavenue/.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency

London Review of Books | Vol. 29 No. 5 8 March 2007

By Mahmood Mamdani

CONTROVERSY: Logo for the savedarfur.org, one of several orgs demanding intervention in the Sudan by the very people who intervened so selflessly in Iraq. Darfur should be a cautionary tale for easily misguided liberals, who apparently never learn, while it presents an opportunity for business for Western-based, corporate-styled human-calamity agencies, such as Save the Children, who find a raison d'etre in ministering to the stubborn wounds caused by backwardness, and the effects of colonialism and neocolonialism inflicted by the very establishments of which they form an integral part. And the Darfur tragedy reminds us, once again, how important it is to use the right words in a modern world dominated by far from impartial powerful propaganda machines.—The Editors, Cyrano's Journal

March 24, 2006

The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?

The most powerful mobilisation in New York City is in relation to Darfur, not Iraq. One would expect the reverse, for no other reason than that most New Yorkers are American citizens and so should feel directly responsible for the violence in occupied Iraq. But Iraq is a messy place in the American imagination, a place with messy politics. Americans worry about what their government should do in Iraq. Should it withdraw? What would happen if it did? In contrast, there is nothing messy about Darfur. It is a place without history and without politics; simply a site where perpetrators clearly identifiable as 'Arabs' confront victims clearly identifiable as 'Africans'.

A full-page advertisement has appeared several times a week in the New York Times calling for intervention in Darfur now. It wants the intervening forces to be placed under 'a chain of command allowing necessary and timely military action without approval from distant political or civilian personnel'. That intervention in Darfur should not be subject to 'political or civilian' considerations and that the intervening forces should have the right to shoot - to kill - without permission from distant places: these are said to be 'humanitarian' demands. In the same vein, a New Republic editorial on Darfur has called for 'force as a first-resort response'. What makes the situation even more puzzling is that some of those who are calling for an end to intervention in Iraq are demanding an intervention in Darfur; as the slogan goes, 'Out of Iraq and into Darfur.'

What would happen if we thought of Darfur as we do of Iraq, as a place with a history and politics - a messy politics of insurgency and counter-insurgency? Why should an intervention in Darfur not turn out to be a trigger that escalates rather than reduces the level of violence as intervention in Iraq has done? Why might it not create the actual possibility of genocide, not just rhetorically but in reality? Morally, there is no doubt about the horrific nature of the violence against civilians in Darfur. The ambiguity lies in the politics of the violence, whose sources include both a state-connected counter-insurgency and an organised insurgency, very much like the violence in Iraq.

The insurgency and counter-insurgency in Darfur began in 2003. Both were driven by an intermeshing of domestic tensions in the context of a peace-averse international environment defined by the War on Terror. On the one hand, there was a struggle for power within the political class in Sudan, with more marginal interests in the west (following those in the south and in the east) calling for reform at the centre. On the other, there was a community-level split inside Darfur, between nomads and settled farmers, who had earlier forged a way of sharing the use of semi-arid land in the dry season. With the drought that set in towards the late 1970s, co-operation turned into an intense struggle over diminishing resources.

As the insurgency took root among the prospering peasant tribes of Darfur, the government trained and armed the poorer nomads and formed a militia - the Janjawiid - that became the vanguard of the unfolding counter-insurgency. The worst violence came from the Janjawiid, but the insurgent movements were also accused of gross violations. Anyone wanting to end the spiralling violence would have to bring about power-sharing at the state level and resource-sharing at the community level, land being the key resource.

Since its onset, two official verdicts have been delivered on the violence, the first from the US, the second from the UN. The American verdict was unambiguous: Darfur was the site of an ongoing genocide. The chain of events leading to Washington's proclamation began with 'a genocide alert' from the Management Committee of the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum; according to the Jerusalem Post, the alert was 'the first ever of its kind, issued by the US Holocaust Museum'. The House of Representatives followed unanimously on 24 June 2004. The last to join the chorus was Colin Powell.

The UN Commission on Darfur was created in the aftermath of the American verdict and in response to American pressure. It was more ambiguous. In September 2004, the Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, then the chair of the African Union, visited UN headquarters in New York. Darfur had been the focal point of discussion in the African Union. All concerned were alert to the extreme political sensitivity of the issue. At a press conference at the UN on 23 September Obasanjo was asked to pronounce on the violence in Darfur: was it genocide or not? His response was very clear:

Before you can say that this is genocide or ethnic cleansing, we will have to have a definite decision and plan and programme of a government to wipe out a particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide, ethnic cleansing. What we know is not that. What we know is that there was an uprising, rebellion, and the government armed another group of people to stop that rebellion. That's what we know. That does not amount to genocide from our own reckoning. It amounts to of course conflict. It amounts to violence.

By October, the Security Council had established a five-person commission of inquiry on Darfur and asked it to report within three months on 'violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties', and specifically to determine 'whether or not acts of genocide have occurred'. Among the members of the commission was the chief prosecutor of South Africa's TRC, Dumisa Ntsebeza. In its report, submitted on 25 January 2005, the commission concluded that 'the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide . . . directly or through the militias under its control.' But the commission did find that the government's violence was 'deliberately and indiscriminately directed against civilians'. Indeed, 'even where rebels may have been present in villages, the impact of attacks on civilians shows that the use of military force was manifestly disproportionate to any threat posed by the rebels.' These acts, the commission concluded, 'were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity' (my emphasis). Yet, the commission insisted, they did not amount to acts of genocide: 'The crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing . . . it would seem that those who planned and organised attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare.'

At the same time, the commission assigned secondary responsibility to rebel forces - namely, members of the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement - which it held 'responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which may amount to war crimes' (my emphasis). If the government stood accused of 'crimes against humanity', rebel movements were accused of 'war crimes'. Finally, the commission identified individual perpetrators and presented the UN secretary-general with a sealed list that included 'officials of the government of Sudan, members of militia forces, members of rebel groups and certain foreign army officers acting in their personal capacity'. The list named 51 individuals.

The commission's findings highlighted three violations of international law: disproportionate response, conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, targeting entire groups (as opposed to identifiable individuals) but without the intention to eliminate them as groups. It is for this last reason that the commission ruled out the finding of genocide. Its less grave findings of 'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes' are not unique to Darfur, but fit several other situations of extreme violence: in particular, the US occupation of Iraq, the Hema-Lendu violence in eastern Congo and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Among those in the counter-insurgency accused of war crimes were the 'foreign army officers acting in their personal capacity', i.e. mercenaries, presumably recruited from armed forces outside Sudan. The involvement of mercenaries in perpetrating gross violence also fits the occupation in Iraq, where some of them go by the name of 'contractors'.

The journalist in the US most closely identified with consciousness-raising on Darfur is the New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof, often identified as a lone crusader on the issue. To peruse Kristof's Darfur columns over the past three years is to see the reduction of a complex political context to a morality tale unfolding in a world populated by villains and victims who never trade places and so can always and easily be told apart. It is a world where atrocities mount geometrically, the perpetrators so evil and the victims so helpless that the only possibility of relief is a rescue mission from the outside, preferably in the form of a military intervention.

Kristof made six highly publicised trips to Darfur, the first in March 2004 and the sixth two years later. He began by writing of it as a case of 'ethnic cleansing': 'Sudan's Arab rulers' had 'forced 700,000 black African Sudanese to flee their villages' (24 March 2004). Only three days later, he upped the ante: this was no longer ethnic cleansing, but genocide. 'Right now,' he wrote on 27 March, 'the government of Sudan is engaged in genocide against three large African tribes in its Darfur region.' He continued: 'The killings are being orchestrated by the Arab-dominated Sudanese government' and 'the victims are non-Arabs: blacks in the Zaghawa, Massalliet and Fur tribes.' He estimated the death toll at a thousand a week. Two months later, on 29 May, he revised the estimates dramatically upwards, citing predictions from the US Agency for International Development to the effect that 'at best, "only" 100,000 people will die in Darfur this year of malnutrition and disease' but 'if things go badly, half a million will die.'

The UN commission's report was released on 25 February 2005. It confirmed 'massive displacement' of persons ('more than a million' internally displaced and 'more than 200,000' refugees in Chad) and the destruction of 'several hundred' villages and hamlets as 'irrefutable facts'; but it gave no confirmed numbers for those killed. Instead, it noted rebel claims that government-allied forces had 'allegedly killed over 70,000 persons'. Following the publication of the report, Kristof began to scale down his estimates. For the first time, on 23 February 2005, he admitted that 'the numbers are fuzzy.' Rather than the usual single total, he went on to give a range of figures, from a low of 70,000, which he dismissed as 'a UN estimate', to 'independent estimates [that] exceed 220,000'. A warning followed: 'and the number is rising by about ten thousand a month.'

The publication of the commission's report had considerable effect. Internationally, it raised doubts about whether what was going on in Darfur could be termed genocide. Even US officials were unwilling to go along with the high estimates propagated by the broad alliance of organisations that subscribe to the Save Darfur campaign. The effect on American diplomacy was discernible. Three months later, on 3 May, Kristof noted with dismay that not only had 'Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past judgment that the killings amount to genocide': he had 'also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000'. As an alternative, Kristof cited the latest estimate of deaths from the Coalition for International Justice as 'nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a day'. In three months, Kristof's estimates had gone up from 10,000 to 15,000 a month. Six months later, on 27 November, Kristof warned that 'if aid groups pull out . . . the death toll could then rise to 100,000 a month.' Anyone keeping a tally of the death toll in Darfur as reported in the Kristof columns would find the rise, fall and rise again very bewildering. First he projected the number of dead at 320,000 for 2004 (16 June 2004) but then gave a scaled down estimate of between 70,000 and 220,000 (23 February 2005). The number began once more to climb to 'nearly 400,000' (3 May 2005), only to come down yet again to 300,000 (23 April 2006). Each time figures were given with equal confidence but with no attempt to explain their basis. Did the numbers reflect an actual decline in the scale of killing in Darfur or was Kristof simply making an adjustment to the changing mood internationally?

In the 23 April column, Kristof expanded the list of perpetrators to include an external power: 'China is now underwriting its second genocide in three decades. The first was in Pol Pot's Cambodia, and the second is in Darfur, Sudan. Chinese oil purchases have financed Sudan's pillage of Darfur, Chinese-made AK-47s have been the main weapons used to slaughter several hundred thousand people in Darfur so far and China has protected Sudan in the UN Security Council.' In the Kristof columns, there is one area of deafening silence, to do with the fact that what is happening in Darfur is a civil war. Hardly a word is said about the insurgency, about the civilian deaths insurgents mete out, about acts that the commission characterised as 'war crimes'. Would the logic of his 23 April column not lead one to think that those with connections to the insurgency, some of them active in the international campaign to declare Darfur the site of genocide, were also guilty of 'underwriting' war crimes in Darfur?

Newspaper writing on Darfur has sketched a pornography of violence. It seems fascinated by and fixated on the gory details, describing the worst of the atrocities in gruesome detail and chronicling the rise in the number of them. The implication is that the motivation of the perpetrators lies in biology ('race') and, if not that, certainly in 'culture'. This voyeuristic approach accompanies a moralistic discourse whose effect is both to obscure the politics of the violence and position the reader as a virtuous, not just a concerned observer.

Journalism gives us a simple moral world, where a group of perpetrators face a group of victims, but where neither history nor motivation is thinkable because both are outside history and context. Even when newspapers highlight violence as a social phenomenon, they fail to understand the forces that shape the agency of the perpetrator. Instead, they look for a clear and uncomplicated moral that describes the victim as untainted and the perpetrator as simply evil. Where yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators, where victims have turned perpetrators, this attempt to find an African replay of the Holocaust not only does not work but also has perverse consequences. Whatever its analytical weaknesses, the depoliticisation of violence has given its proponents distinct political advantages.

The conflict in Darfur is highly politicised, and so is the international campaign. One of the campaign's constant refrains has been that the ongoing genocide is racial: 'Arabs' are trying to eliminate 'Africans'. But both 'Arab' and 'African' have several meanings in Sudan. There have been at least three meanings of 'Arab'. Locally, 'Arab' was a pejorative reference to the lifestyle of the nomad as uncouth; regionally, it referred to someone whose primary language was Arabic. In this sense, a group could become 'Arab' over time. This process, known as Arabisation, was not an anomaly in the region: there was Amharisation in Ethiopia and Swahilisation on the East African coast. The third meaning of 'Arab' was 'privileged and exclusive'; it was the claim of the riverine political aristocracy who had ruled Sudan since independence, and who equated Arabisation with the spread of civilisation and being Arab with descent.

'African', in this context, was a subaltern identity that also had the potential of being either exclusive or inclusive. The two meanings were not only contradictory but came from the experience of two different insurgencies. The inclusive meaning was more political than racial or even cultural (linguistic), in the sense that an 'African' was anyone determined to make a future within Africa. It was pioneered by John Garang, the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) in the south, as a way of holding together the New Sudan he hoped to see. In contrast, its exclusive meaning came in two versions, one hard (racial) and the other soft (linguistic) - 'African' as Bantu and 'African' as the identity of anyone who spoke a language indigenous to Africa. The racial meaning came to take a strong hold in both the counter-insurgency and the insurgency in Darfur. The Save Darfur campaign's characterisation of the violence as 'Arab' against 'African' obscured both the fact that the violence was not one-sided and the contest over the meaning of 'Arab' and 'African': a contest that was critical precisely because it was ultimately about who belonged and who did not in the political community called Sudan. The depoliticisation, naturalisation and, ultimately, demonisation of the notion 'Arab', as against 'African', has been the deadliest effect, whether intended or not, of the Save Darfur campaign.

The depoliticisation of the conflict gave campaigners three advantages. First, they were able to occupy the moral high ground. The campaign presented itself as apolitical but moral, its concern limited only to saving lives. Second, only a single-issue campaign could bring together in a unified chorus forces that are otherwise ranged as adversaries on most important issues of the day: at one end, the Christian right and the Zionist lobby; at the other, a mainly school and university-based peace movement. Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice wrote of the Save Darfur Coalition as 'an alliance of more than 515 faith-based, humanitarian and human rights organisations'; among the organisers of their Rally to Stop the Genocide in Washington last year were groups as diverse as the American Jewish World Service, the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the National Association of Evangelicals, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Anti-Slavery Group, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity International, Physicians for Human Rights and the National Black Church Initiative. Surely, such a wide coalition would cease to hold together if the issue shifted to, say, Iraq.

To understand the third advantage, we have to return to the question I asked earlier: how could it be that many of those calling for an end to the American and British intervention in Iraq are demanding an intervention in Darfur? It's tempting to think that the advantage of Darfur lies in its being a small, faraway place where those who drive the War on Terror do not have a vested interest. That this is hardly the case is evident if one compares the American response to Darfur to its non-response to Congo, even though the dimensions of the conflict in Congo seem to give it a mega-Darfur quality: the numbers killed are estimated in the millions rather than the hundreds of thousands; the bulk of the killing, particularly in Kivu, is done by paramilitaries trained, organised and armed by neighbouring governments; and the victims on both sides - Hema and Lendu - are framed in collective rather than individual terms, to the point that one influential version defines both as racial identities and the conflict between the two as a replay of the Rwandan genocide. Given all this, how does one explain the fact that the focus of the most widespread and ambitious humanitarian movement in the US is on Darfur and not on Kivu?

Nicholas Kristof was asked this very question by a university audience: 'When I spoke at Cornell University recently, a woman asked why I always harp on Darfur. It's a fair question. The number of people killed in Darfur so far is modest in global terms: estimates range from 200,000 to more than 500,000. In contrast, four million people have died since 1998 as a result of the fighting in Congo, the most lethal conflict since World War Two.' But instead of answering the question, Kristof - now writing his column rather than facing the questioner at Cornell - moved on: 'And malaria annually kills one million to three million people - meaning that three years' deaths in Darfur are within the margin of error of the annual global toll from malaria.' And from there he went on to compare the deaths in Darfur to the deaths from malaria, rather than from the conflict in Congo: 'We have a moral compass within us and its needle is moved not only by human suffering but also by human evil. That's what makes genocide special - not just the number of deaths but the government policy behind them. And that in turn is why stopping genocide should be an even higher priority than saving lives from Aids or malaria.' That did not explain the relative silence on Congo. Could the reason be that in the case of Congo, Hema and Lendu militias - many of them no more than child soldiers - were trained by America's allies in the region, Rwanda and Uganda? Is that why the violence in Darfur - but not the violence in Kivu - is named as a genocide?

It seems that genocide has become a label to be stuck on your worst enemy, a perverse version of the Nobel Prize, part of a rhetorical arsenal that helps you vilify your adversaries while ensuring impunity for your allies. In Kristof's words, the point is not so much 'human suffering' as 'human evil'. Unlike Kivu, Darfur can be neatly integrated into the War on Terror, for Darfur gives the Warriors on Terror a valuable asset with which to demonise an enemy: a genocide perpetrated by Arabs. This was the third and most valuable advantage that Save Darfur gained from depoliticising the conflict. The more thoroughly Darfur was integrated into the War on Terror, the more the depoliticised violence in Darfur acquired a racial description, as a genocide of 'Arabs' killing 'Africans'. Racial difference purportedly constituted the motive force behind the mass killings. The irony of Kristof's columns is that they mirror the ideology of Arab supremacism in Sudan by demonising entire communities.[*]

Kristof chides Arab peoples and the Arab press for not having the moral fibre to respond to this Muslim-on-Muslim violence, presumably because it is a violence inflicted by Arab Muslims on African Muslims. In one of his early columns in 2004, he was outraged by the silence of Muslim leaders: 'Do they care about dead Muslims only when the killers are Israelis or Americans?' Two years later he asked: 'And where is the Arab press? Isn't the murder of 300,000 or more Muslims almost as offensive as a Danish cartoon?' Six months later, Kristof pursued this line on NBC's Today Show. Elaborating on the 'real blind spot' in the Muslim world, he said: 'You are beginning to get some voices in the Muslim world . . . saying it's appalling that you have evangelical Christians and American Jews leading an effort to protect Muslims in Sudan and in Chad.'

If many of the leading lights in the Darfur campaign are fired by moral indignation, this derives from two events: the Nazi Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. After all, the seeds of the Save Darfur campaign lie in the tenth-anniversary commemoration of what happened in Rwanda. Darfur is today a metaphor for senseless violence in politics, as indeed Rwanda was a decade before. Most writing on the Rwandan genocide in the US was also done by journalists. In We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families, the most widely read book on the genocide, Philip Gourevitch envisaged Rwanda as a replay of the Holocaust, with Hutu cast as perpetrators and Tutsi as victims. Again, the encounter between the two seemed to take place outside any context, as part of an eternal encounter between evil and innocence. Many of the journalists who write about Darfur have Rwanda very much in the back of their minds. In December 2004, Kristof recalled the lessons of Rwanda: 'Early in his presidency, Mr Bush read a report about Bill Clinton's paralysis during the Rwandan genocide and scrawled in the margin: "Not on my watch." But in fact the same thing is happening on his watch, and I find that heartbreaking and baffling.'

With very few exceptions, the Save Darfur campaign has drawn a single lesson from Rwanda: the problem was the US failure to intervene to stop the genocide. Rwanda is the guilt that America must expiate, and to do so it must be ready to intervene, for good and against evil, even globally. That lesson is inscribed at the heart of Samantha Power's book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But it is the wrong lesson. The Rwandan genocide was born of a civil war which intensified when the settlement to contain it broke down. The settlement, reached at the Arusha Conference, broke down because neither the Hutu Power tendency nor the Tutsi-dominated Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) had any interest in observing the power-sharing arrangement at the core of the settlement: the former because it was excluded from the settlement and the latter because it was unwilling to share power in any meaningful way.

What the humanitarian intervention lobby fails to see is that the US did intervene in Rwanda, through a proxy. That proxy was the RPF, backed up by entire units from the Uganda Army. The green light was given to the RPF, whose commanding officer, Paul Kagame, had recently returned from training in the US, just as it was lately given to the Ethiopian army in Somalia. Instead of using its resources and influence to bring about a political solution to the civil war, and then strengthen it, the US signalled to one of the parties that it could pursue victory with impunity. This unilateralism was part of what led to the disaster, and that is the real lesson of Rwanda. Applied to Darfur and Sudan, it is sobering. It means recognising that Darfur is not yet another Rwanda. Nurturing hopes of an external military intervention among those in the insurgency who aspire to victory and reinforcing the fears of those in the counter-insurgency who see it as a prelude to defeat are precisely the ways to ensure that it becomes a Rwanda. Strengthening those on both sides who stand for a political settlement to the civil war is the only realistic approach. Solidarity, not intervention, is what will bring peace to Darfur.

The dynamic of civil war in Sudan has fed on multiple sources: first, the post-independence monopoly of power enjoyed by a tiny 'Arabised' elite from the riverine north of Khartoum, a monopoly that has bred growing resistance among the majority, marginalised populations in the south, east and west of the country; second, the rebel movements which have in their turn bred ambitious leaders unwilling to enter into power-sharing arrangements as a prelude to peace; and, finally, external forces that continue to encourage those who are interested in retaining or obtaining a monopoly of power.

The dynamic of peace, by contrast, has fed on a series of power-sharing arrangements, first in the south and then in the east. This process has been intermittent in Darfur. African Union-organised negotiations have been successful in forging a power-sharing arrangement, but only for that arrangement to fall apart time and again. A large part of the explanation, as I suggested earlier, lies in the international context of the War on Terror, which favours parties who are averse to taking risks for peace. To reinforce the peace process must be the first commitment of all those interested in Darfur.

The camp of peace needs to come to a second realisation: that peace cannot be built on humanitarian intervention, which is the language of big powers. The history of colonialism should teach us that every major intervention has been justified as humanitarian, a 'civilising mission'. Nor was it mere idiosyncrasy that inspired the devotion with which many colonial officers and archivists recorded the details of barbarity among the colonised - sati, the ban on widow marriage or the practice of child marriage in India, or slavery and female genital mutilation in Africa. I am not suggesting that this was all invention. I mean only to point out that the chronicling of atrocities had a practical purpose: it provided the moral pretext for intervention. Now, as then, imperial interventions claim to have a dual purpose: on the one hand, to rescue minority victims of ongoing barbarities and, on the other, to quarantine majority perpetrators with the stated aim of civilising them. Iraq should act as a warning on this score. The worst thing in Darfur would be an Iraq-style intervention. That would almost certainly spread the civil war to other parts of Sudan, unravelling the peace process in the east and south and dragging the whole country into the global War on Terror.

Footnotes

* Contrast this with the UN commission's painstaking effort to make sense of the identities 'Arab' and 'African'. The commission's report concentrated on three related points. First, the claim that the Darfur conflict pitted 'Arab' against 'African' was facile. 'In fact, the commission found that many Arabs in Darfur are opposed to the Janjawiid, and some Arabs are fighting with the rebels, such as certain Arab commanders and their men from the Misseriya and Rizeigat tribes. At the same time, many non-Arabs are supporting the government and serving in its army.' Second, it has never been easy to sort different tribes into the categories 'Arab' and 'African': 'The various tribes that have been the object of attacks and killings (chiefly the Fur, Massalit and Zeghawa tribes) do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct from the ethnic groups to which persons or militias that attack them belong. They speak the same language (Arabic) and embrace the same religion (Muslim). In addition, also due to the high measure of intermarriage, they can hardly be distinguished in their outward physical appearance from the members of tribes that allegedly attacked them. Apparently, the sedentary and nomadic character of the groups constitutes one of the main distinctions between them' (emphasis mine). Finally, the commission put forward the view that political developments are driving the rapidly growing distinction between 'Arab' and 'African'. On the one hand, 'Arab' and 'African' seem to have become political identities: 'Those tribes in Darfur who support rebels have increasingly come to be identified as "African" and those supporting the government as the "Arabs". A good example to illustrate this is that of the Gimmer, a pro-government African tribe that is seen by the African tribes opposed to the government as having been "Arabised".' On the other hand, this development was being promoted from the outside: 'The Arab-African divide has also been fanned by the growing insistence on such divide in some circles and in the media.'


Mahmood Mamdani (b. 1947 in Kampala, Uganda) is the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the Departments of Anthropology and Political Science at Columbia University. He is also the current President of the Council for Development of Social Research in Africa (CODESRIA) Dakar, Senegal. One of his best known books is When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda (Princeton University Press, 2001). Mamdani's reputation as an expert in African history, politics and international relations has made him an important voice in contemporary debates about Africa. His book Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism (Princeton University Press, 1996) won the prestigious Herskovits Award of the African Studies Association of the USA (1998).