May 1, 2006
A t
the huge, inspiring antiwar march in New York yesterday, I noticed many
placards with the massage, "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur." They were held by
members of a group called "Volunteer for Change," described as "a project
of Working Assets." I wasn’t sure what to make of the slogan. Was it
somehow satirical, playing on "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" and
warning about a future Somalia-like intervention in Africa? Or was this
really a call to take US troops out of Iraq and deploy them instead in
"humanitarian" "peacekeeping" in western Sudan?
This morning I’ve
done some Google searching and found the answer. It is, unfortunately, the
latter. Since at least last year
Working Assets has been urging people to petition President Bush to
support "urgent international action" through the UN to "protect innocent
civilians" in Darfur. Plainly the
organization finds no contradiction between opposing imperialist military
deployment in Iraq and supporting it in Sudan. Nor, perhaps, do many of
those marching in Washington D.C. today to demand such U.S. intervention.
For many months now
I’ve occasionally received emails asking me, "Why are you spending so much
time attacking Bush Middle East policy, and ignoring the atrocities in
Darfur?" There are many reasons I haven’t written on it, including the
fact that I put opposing imperialist wars with their murderous
consequences at the top of my list of things to do in my spare time, and
the fact that I haven’t much studied the situation in Darfur. But I’ve
sensed for awhile that some forces are using the alleged "genocide"
in that region to divert attention from the ongoing slaughter in Iraq (and
ongoing brutalization of the Palestinians by Israel), and to depict
another targeted Arab regime as so villainous as to require what the
neocons call "regime change." They’ve mischaracterized the conflict as one
between "Arabs" and "indigenous Africans" whereas (as I understand it)
all parties involved are Arabic-speaking black Africans -- "Arab"
"African" and "black" being distinctions more complicated than most
Americans realize.
I’d ask those
holding those signs yesterday to recall that in November 2001
a
general at the Pentagon told Gen. Wesley Clark that in the wake of
9-11 the administration had "a five-year campaign plan" to attack not only
Afghanistan but "Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Somalia."
I’d ask Working Assets to observe that the Iraq War it opposes and
the Sudan intervention is endorses are in fact part of that same
empire-building campaign plan.
Last June a UN
commission determined that what has been taking place in Darfur, however
awful,
does not constitute a genocidal policy by the Sudanese
government. But Washington decided
otherwise, and used the
highly emotional concepts of genocide and "holocaust" to describe the
situation. It has since pushed NATO to train African Union troops
to provide peacekeeping operations in Darfur and advocated a direct
NATO presence in the region, unprecedented in Africa.
Last November, John Bolton, the bullying, bellicose, unconfirmed
U.S. ambassador to the UN who has no history of concern for human rights,
blocked a briefing by a UN envoy on Darfur to the Security Council
prepared by Juan Mendez, Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special adviser
for the prevention of genocide. In doing so he joined nations like China
and Russia for their own reasons not inclined to take action
against Sudan. But Bolton unlike the
Russian and Chinese ambassadors pushed for such action. We know enough
already, he says, now it’s time to move! Washington isn’t really much
interested in the facts of the Darfur situation, any more that it
was about the facts in Iraq before it attacked that country. It’s
interested rather in what the neocons call "perception management," and is
doing a good job of managing the perceptions of even some progressives on
the issue.
Today’s
demonstration in Washington was organized by a coalition called "Save
Darfur." It describes itself as
"an alliance of over 130 diverse faith-based, humanitarian, and human
rights organizations." The Jerusalem Post provides
additional information: "Little known…is that the coalition…was
actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish
community."
The American
Holocaust Museum has been conspicuously involved, and while many people
feel that the term "genocide" should be used very sparingly the Museum
hasn’t hesitated to
draw parallels between the Shoah and the Darfur situation.
Joining Jewish organizations are evangelical Zionist Christian
groups who
see Sudan as a prime mission ground in these Latter Days.
And as advertised,
diverse organizations capable of drawing someone like the admirably
progressive actor George Clooney into give an address at the rally.
We’re talking about
a rally urging a U.S./NATO intervention in Africa’s largest country,
legitimated by the UN strong-armed by a thuggish neocon-led administration
in Washington. We’re talking potentially about regime change in Africa’s
second-largest oil producer, in the context of planned U.S. strikes
against Syria and Iran. Should anyone in the antiwar movement with a
minimal knowledge or recent history be comfortable with that, or suppose
that it could be fully benign?
A good contingent of
students from my university took the bus to New York to participate in the
New York demo. But other progressive students elected instead to bus down
to the Washington Darfur demo the following day to demand, in effect, that
Bush do something about Darfur. As though oppressors could be liberators.
I have no doubt that
the Sudanese regime is vicious; a close friend from Sudan indeed assures
me that that is true. I think it likely 200,000 people have, as charged,
been killed by the Janjaweed forces. But I also know the viciousness of
which "my" government is capable, and its proclivity for jumping on
humanitarian crises (Kosovo, 1999, for example) to advance its own
geopolitical strategic interests, which have nothing to do with anybody’s
human rights. (In occupied Iraq, about 200,000 civilians had,
according to Andrew Cockburn, been killed as of January 2006.) When
President Bush meets "Darfur advocates" in the White House before the
rally and
tells them, "Those of you who are going out to march for justice, you
represent the best of our country," he indicates pretty clearly that
they’re playing a supportive role in his effort to remake the "Greater
Middle East."
Throughout the
country, the pious-sounding campaign on behalf of Darfur simultaneously
prettifies U.S. imperialism -- if only by asserting the latter can despite
itself do some good in this world. The honest campaigners are like Boromir,
in the Lord of the Rings, asking, "What if we were to use the Ring
. . . for good?" But you can’t use it for good! You can’t go "Out
of Iraq, Into Darfur" without bringing the principles governing the former
illegal intervention into the latter intrusion you’re so naively
recommending. Imperialism’s not a friendly tool kit that can be used to
fix the problems its own lackeys jot down on the collegiate "peace and
justice" to-do list. It’s the problem itself.
By all means, may
the people of Darfur, including those in the Justice and Equality Movement
and the Sudanese Liberation Army (if indeed they represent liberation),
using any means necessary, fight their oppression and seek international
allies in the process. And let those Americans who’ve really studied the
situation and wish to assist the struggle of Darfur’s oppressed provide
such help as they can -- especially if they do so while fighting
oppression globally without any skewed agenda. But let the U.S.
antiwar movement not confuse friends with enemies, and in that confusion
help those Martin Luther King once called "the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world today."
* * *
* *
May 1: According to
Reuters, the Washington demo yesterday drew "several thousand." This
morning’s Boston Globe had a full color front-page photo and
article on the march, estimating the numbers at "tens of thousands." The
one in New York, drawing 300,000, missed yesterday’s front page.
Gary Leupp
is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative
Religion, at Tufts University and author of numerous works on Japanese
history. He can be reached at:
gleupp@granite.tufts.edu.
|