The Power of Citizen Journalism
 
News» Top News» Latest News» Post News ($) Blogs» Top Blogs» Latest Blogs» Post Blog» Images» Top Images» Latest Images» Upload Images» TV» Groups» View Groups» Create a Group» Live Events» Alerts» Create an Alert» Manage Alerts» How do I ...» Get paid to report news» Post blogs» Upload images» Embed video» Join/create groups» Vote on news & images» Comment & debate»
 

article imageThere is no genocide in Darfur

Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele in World | 8 comments | 677 views
Join our team to voice opinions, share images, get paid to report news and more!
Email Print Share
Subscribe to author

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional
An Islamic fascist regime is systematically exterminating civilians in Darfur while the world stands by and does nothing. That is the image most of us have of Darfur. "Not true", says Ronny Brauman of Médecins Sans Frontières.
In an interview with the Algemeen Dagblad, a leading Dutch newspaper, Ronny Brauman, the former director of Médecins Sans Frontières in France, says that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is serious and critical, but that the peak of the war occurred four years ago. Current circumstances are in no way comparable to what they were in 2003/2004. There is a lot less violence now. Nearly all victims are members of armed groups and the army that are fighting each other.

According to Brauman, there are about 13,000 relief workers in Darfur and another 2,000 in the Chad border area. Bernard Kouchner claimed earlier this year that about 10,000 people are killed every month in Darfur. "This is simply untrue," says Brauman. "There are about 100 deaths a month. That is still a lot, but it is not comparable to the picture of a genocide that people are painting."

Earlier this year, Bernard-Henri Lévy, a leading French intellectual, attacked Brauman, who was born in Jerusalem, by saying that nearly all Jews were exterminated in 1944 and asking if the world should have done nothing.

Brauman reacts by stating that mentioning Nazism always silences all critics but that this pictures Darfur as a type of "Auschwitz in the sand" and that this leads people to do all types of stupid things such as the action by "Arche de Zoé," an organization that went to Chad to collect 103 children they honestly thought they were saving from certain death. People like Kouchner and Lévy are morally responsible for such actions.

The real danger is even bigger. This climate leads directly to a military intervention in Sudan since all this talk about genocide and comparisons with the Holocaust can only lead to one response: intervene in order to prevent further bloodshed. Pressure is steadily increased until everybody believes that the military must be sent over there in order to save tens of thousands of innocent lives. However, that is simply not how the situation is.

According to Brauman, the propaganda comes from everywhere, for example from people such as actor George Clooney who turns Darfur into a "spectacle". Propaganda also comes from American organizations such as Save Darfur and from French intellectuals such as Kouchner and Lévy.

"This is mobilization for the sake of mobilization. We do it because we want to feel good; we want to know that we do not ignore Darfur, that we are talking about it. It enables us to look in the mirror and to say that we are still the most beautiful of all."

Brauman thinks that there is also a secondary political agenda. "There is an ideological coalition with the neo-conservatives in the United States. Intellectuals and neo-conservatives think that we must intervene in Sudan. The first want to save people, the second want to overthrow the Islamic regime. This way, the humanitarian disaster is used to prepare the public for an intervention."

"Such an intervention will be anything but beneficial," says Brauman. "Everybody knows that it is impossible. There are lots of small groups that are all conducting their own little wars, dozens of Arab groups, political militias, rebels, armed groups."

"Intervening in Sudan will make Iraq pale in comparison," says Brauman cynically. "If you liked Iraq, you will love Sudan."
article:246100:13::0
3 subscribers
Subscribe to this thread
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  Bob Ewing
    #1
    A perspective worthy of further investigation.
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  Bocephalus
    #2
    @ Bob Ewing
    A perspective worthy of further investigation.

    perfectly worded.

    Very insightful article. Seems as though the media has once again failed us and focused on the sensationalist aspects and driven people into hysteria based (at least in small part) on exaggerations and anti-Islamic bias.

    Glad to see things are possibly not as bad as reported and not as many civilians are dying as feared.

    Remember, this was a war started by rebel groups who decided to violently rebel against the central government. However there is no denying that many reprehensible acts against the civilian population were committed although certainly not worthy of comparison to the holocaust under any scenario.
  • atroxodisse Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  atroxodisse
    #3
    How is it that this news hasn't hit the mainstream press? You'd think that someone would actually go over there and see what was really going on instead of rewording the same crap they get from AP or Reuters.
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  lensman67
    #4
    I love the way history keeps repeating itself. More that a hundred years ago well meaning British progressives demanded that the Conservative government send troops to help suppress the slave trade, run by "wicked" Muslims, in the Sudan.

    Contrary to modern opinion however the British Conservatives were not the party of Empire--that was the Liberals! They had spent the second half of the 19th century sending humanitarian expeditions all over the world trying to help bring civilization to "lesser breeds without the light."

    Finally a do good-er named General Charles Gordon deliberately got himself besieged in Khartoum to "force" the British to send an expedition to save him. The Conservatives were swept from office and the Liberals sent the troops, who arrived only hours too late. Gordon was dead.

    The British came back a bit more than a decade later and conquered the entire, poverty stricken, region "for their own good." The cost of trying to govern this money drain was one of the factors that lead to the collapse of the British Empire.

    A good case can be made for the proposition that, unlike the Belgians, who built their empire entirely for greed, or the French and Germans who built theirs for prestige, the English built their POST 1857 empire, to a very great extent, for humanitarian reasons.

    Although greed seems to be the main force behind US imperialism one should never underestimate the power of misplace humanitarianism for building empires.
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  Helena Handbasket
    #5
    Even if let's say the US or Britain or Canada determined they should intervene in this maybe yes, maybe no scenario -- there are no troops to send. Busy elsewhere.

    Mr. Clooney made quite the media case for an ongoing genocide, but no one will convince me the Hollywood leading man was anywhere near any sort of dangerous environment or militia. I'm sure he works to avoid a paper cut.
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  Chris V. (cgull)
    #6
    The UN should go and monitor this and try to improve the situation, genocide or not, even if this happen in a small scale is still a tragedy. It is like ethnic cleansing, power against the powerless. I hope they solve it once for all for the sake of the poor and the refugees.
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  zadzi
    #7
    Really wonderful, well-written article.
    This is pretty big news, and I'm shocked that the media hasn't properly covered this.
    What am I saying? - I'm not shocked!
    Disappointed, certainly, that such a new angle on this is worthy of investigation, and yet hasn't been presented to the main stream, to the general public. And with Clooney's foolishness, it doesn't help.
    I was always somewhat suspicious about the happenings in Darfur, felt there was a lot of vagueness around it, and that in itself made me suspicious, especially with the word 'genocide' getting tossed around so eagerly.
    It makes a certain amount of sense, with the current Anti-Islam campaign...not just to stir up hatred toward them, but to make people truly terrified and say 'Look, they can do this to YOU! They will make you convert or kill you! Either way, they will still KILL you!!"
    That seems to be the general message nowadays...
  • avatar Posted Nov 12, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #8
    @ atroxodisseYou'd think that someone would actually go over there and see what was really going on instead of rewording the same crap they get from AP or Reuters.
    The tragedy is that there have been people going over there to have a look. They've been showed on television. However, it always did seem a lie to me since they never showed what was going on, only the typical crying mothers in the camps. This is not to say that it is not tragic. People who leave everything behind to flee to (hopefully) a safer, better place are not happy people, but they are not proof, not even evidence of a genocide.


    @ lensman67...unlike the Belgians, who built their empire entirely for greed, ...
    It's even worse. It was essentially built for the greed of a single man, Leopold II, the man who is still revered in the school history books as the man who brought civilization, medicine and Catholicism to the "poor little Negroes". It is revolting that a mass murderer who is arguably on par or even worse than Adolf Hitler can still be revered in this disgusting little country where I happen to be born.

    Once he had plundered the country to the best of his abilities, he "graciously donated it to his beloved Belgian people."

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?