THINK TWICE

(Chicago Sun-Times) Why has the international community been immeasurably generous to the victims of the tsunami that rocked several coastline nations along the Indian Ocean but shamefully nonchalant about genocide and the cataclysmic human catastrophe taking place in Darfur, Sudan?

The horrific tsunami disaster killed more than 200,000 people, leaving millions in destitute poverty without food, water and shelter. While the outpouring of support for tsunami victims is critically important, why has the international community been arguably blasé about what the U.N. called the world’s worst and most neglected humanitarian crisis in Darfur? Nearly 11 years after the world sat idly by while preventable genocide in Rwanda claimed 1 million lives, international bias against the “Dark Continent” has allowed civil conflict to thrive unchecked, resulting in unimaginable human suffering, genocide to persist in Darfur, and the deaths of 3.8 million in Congo; 2 million in the north-south conflict in Sudan; 300,000 in Burundi, and 250,000 in Liberia. The failure of the African Union and the U.N. to declare the killing in Darfur genocide, publicly condemn the government of Sudan and take robust action to halt it contributed to inaction by lowering the standard of internationally acceptable behavior of states.

As of this month, the crisis in Darfur has claimed 70,000 lives and could claim an additional 350,000 in the next nine months, mainly from starvation and disease. Many more will die if the direct killing is not stopped. The World Health Organization reports that 10,000 Darfurians are dying each month from starvation and disease in government-controlled Internally Displaced Persons camps. Equally troubling, 1.7 million people out of 6.5 million in Darfur have been forced from their homes into these camps, and 230,000 fled into Chad as refugees. Unlike the tsunami disaster, the crisis in Darfur is manmade and could have been prevented and tens of thousands of lives saved by a robust U.N.-sanctioned peace enforcement operation.

Several justifications might explain why the tsunami tragedy has received greater attention than Darfur, including donor disinterest and fatigue with Africa’s crises; donor apprehension about peacekeeping in Africa in the wake of the Somalia debacle; extensive media coverage of the tsunami (access to Darfur is difficult and raw footage of acts of genocide are rare); responses to natural vs. manmade disasters, and the climbing death toll in Asia.

International law places a positive duty on states to “prevent and punish” acts of genocide. No equivalent duty exists to mitigate the effects of natural catastrophes. The African Union and U.N. relief agencies have not received enough assistance to prevent the humanitarian crisis in Darfur while aid to tsunami victims has already exceeded expectations. Jan Egeland, U.N. Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs, has stated that a lack of resources is one of the primary reasons why the U.N. has failed to prevent killing in Africa. Aid to tsunami victims is already in the billions. After 12 months of international appeals, Darfur has yet to reach $1 billion. Since 1998, the civil war in Congo has claimed 3.8 million lives, mainly women and children, yet aid for the country has yet to reach the $200 million mark.

Today, would the “civilized world” sit idly by and allow 70,000 Europeans to die of preventable genocide and mass starvation and disease? One wonders why the lives of Black Africans are seemingly worth less on the global humanitarian market today than they were as viable commodities of international commerce in the 19th century?

(Chicago Sun-Times) African Americans helped elect President Bush to a second term in the 2004 general election. At his speech before the National Urban League on July 23, the president asked for the “black vote.” He challenged black voters to reflect on four critical questions:

1. Does the Democratic Party take African-American voters for granted?

2. Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party?

3. How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?

4. Have the traditional solutions of the Democratic Party truly served the African-American community?

African Americans have been pondering these vital questions long before Bush was elected president; however, his restatement of them was timely. Many African Americans answered Yes, No, I don’t know and No, to his questions and voted Republican on Nov. 2.

Before the November election, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C., released findings of a new national opinion survey that showed support for Bush among African Americans had doubled over the past four years. The survey of African Americans ages 18 and older found that 18 percent support Bush in 2004 compared with 9 percent in 2000 (though the Election Day total showed him increasing his black vote to 11 percent nationwide but 16 percent in the critical state of Ohio). The increase came despite a drop in Bush’s job approval rating in every subgroup of African Americans (a 17 percent total decrease), since 2002.

Generally speaking, African Americans have been and will continue to be among the most morally and socially conservative groups in American society, and black Christian conservatives place a premium on morally focused government policy over anything else. The Joint Center survey reveals that the majority of blacks disfavor Bush’s policies on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, the No Child Left Behind program, health care and affirmative action, but support the GOP’s conservative agenda on faith-based initiatives, same-sex marriage, school vouchers, prayer in school, the death penalty and other policies on small businesses, the federal ban on racial profiling and providing record funding for historically black colleges, etc. It appears that Bush’s Christian conservative moral, social and business agendas are the key reasons behind an increase in support of the GOP among blacks, particularly older blacks.

In his speech to the National Urban League, Bush admitted that the “Republican Party has got a lot of work to do” in building confidence in the black community. He also commented that the African- American vote should be sought and earned. Hence, I pose this question to Bush and the Republican Party:

If blacks are generally morally and socially conservative, and even more so than whites on certain issues such as same-sex marriage, why don’t more African Americans identify themselves as Republican?

Most African Americans perceive the GOP to be racist and actively working against their interests (e.g., Bush’s position on affirmative action in the Michigan case). Many blacks believe that the Republican Party is not genuinely interested in or aware of pressing issues facing their communities (e.g., Vice President Dick Cheney’s admitted ignorance about the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the black community during the televised vice-presidential debate). The GOP hasn’t aggressively and systematically sought out African-American voters or developed a viable strategy to do so, nor has it attempted to develop a machinery to recruit blacks into the party and elevate them into positions of authority. The GOP does not need to reinvent the wheel but simply tweak, replicate and financially support the institution of Republican National Committee type structures and organizations at the local and state levels in African-American communities. It must also fashion viable communications strategies. The GOP machine must extend to the ‘hood, which it arguably perceives as eerie and hostile and not worthy of political investment.

Speaking before the National Urban League in 2003, Bush said, “The moral vision of African Americans and of groups like the Urban League caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race.” The GOP must embrace, learn from and institutionalize the legacy and moral vision of African Americans. It must move from hollow paradigms of compassion to practical competency and constructive engagement or surrender otherwise apolitical and Republican-minded votes to a Democratic Party that is wounded but quickly reloading.

(Chicago Sun-Times) The government of France illegally attacked Ivory Coast and the U.N. Security Council sanctioned the illegal action with the adoption of Resolution 1572 on Monday, in what appears to be an imperial plot for regime change in the embattled country.

Once one of Africa’s most stable countries, the former French colony has been embroiled in civil conflict since it was destabilized by a coup d’état in December 1999. Since then it has been besieged by civil conflict, broken peace deals, fledging elections, national xenophobia, failed national reconciliation processes, economic stagnation and full-blown civil war.

The current crisis dates to September 2002 when about 800 disgruntled members of the armed forces of Ivory Coast attacked the country’s military installations in the capital, Abidjan, the second- largest city, Bouake, and the northern city of Korhogo, in protest of plans to demobilize the military. At the request of Ivorian President Gbagbo, France and the Economic Community of West African States sent peacekeeping forces into the country in October 2002.

International peace efforts culminated in the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement in January 2003. The agreement called for a government of national reconciliation, including new elections, restructuring of the military, disarmament of all armed groups and respect for human rights.

In late February 2004, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1528, establishing the U.N. Operation in Ivory Coast to guarantee the terms of the peace agreement. It authorized French peacekeeping forces to “use all necessary means” to support the mission, which includes monitoring the cease-fire and movements of armed groups, disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and resettlement, protection of U.N. personnel, institutions and civilians, support of humanitarian assistance and the maintenance of law and order.

On Nov. 4, the Ivorian government arguably violated an earlier cease-fire agreement by bombing rebel positions in the French patrolled Zone of Confidence separating the rebel north and loyalist south. It is rumored that the bombings were precipitated by rebel movements and the failure of the latter to disarm.

On Nov. 6, France became a party to the conflict by destroying at least two military aircraft in the tiny Ivorian air force in response to an alleged friendly fire incident in which government fighter jets bombed a French military encampment while attacking rebel positions in the northern town of Bouake, the rebel stronghold, killing nine French soldiers and one American civilian.

Under traditional international law, peacekeeping forces are supposed to be impartial, lightly armed, not to use force except in self-defense and function with the consent of the host state. From this background, the French bombing of the Ivorian air force would be illegal and in breach of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibiting states to attack one another unless in self-defense. France was also obligated to adhere to the principles of impartiality and proportionality and prevailing U.N. Charter law prohibitions on uses of force. Notwithstanding, the traditional law of peacekeeping is blurred when states undertake U.N.-authorized enforcement actions. Nonetheless, France’s enforcement power is limited to the operational mandate of the UNOCI, which does not permit reprisals for negligent bombing or the breaching of the cease-fire agreement. Reprisals of this sort are not permitted under international law or by any of the agreements/resolutions controlling this conflict. Because France was operating under a U.N. mandate, it should have formally complained about the bombing to the U.N. before acting as judge and executioner.

French action triggered anti-foreigner violence, heated an arguably simmering xenophobic political culture forcing cores of expatriates to flee the country. It also entrenched political rifts between the rebels and loyalist forces.

Last week, the U.N. Security Council adopted a French-sponsored Resolution 1572, which condemned the Ivorian air strikes and fully supported the retaliatory actions of French forces. The resolution demands that Ivorian authorities cease all radio and television broadcasts inciting hatred, intolerance and violence and, most important, levies an arms embargo on the country. It also promises targeted economic and travel sanctions on anyone who threatens peace and national reconciliation processes. The U.N. is setting a dangerous precedent by sanctioning France’s actions and levying sanctions against Ivory Coast. Let us hope that this rush to judgment and levying of sanctions does not result in mass warfare in the country.

(Chicago Sun-Times) How many black Africans must die at the hands of Muslim Arabs and Afro-Arabs in the Sudan’s Darfur region before the international community takes preventive action? If recent experiences in Rwanda, Congo-Zaire, Liberia and Sierra Leone are indicators, several hundred thousand black Africans in Sudan will be annihilated before the situation warrants international intervention. The rationale is simple: racism and geo-political bias.

Since independence from British rule in 1956, Sudan has been ruled by northern Arabs to the utter dismay of the black southern majority, leading to an insurrection against Arab domination in the 1980s. Since then, Sudan has been immersed in an internal war between the fundamentalist Islamic government in the north and the predominantly Christian or traditionally religious black peoples of the south. What makes the crises in Darfur so unique is that the black Africans in Darfur are Muslim, as are the Sudan government-backed Arab and Afro-Arab Janjaweed militias killing them. While racism, religion and natural resources, namely oil, are the major causes of the war between northern and southern Sudan, the crises in the west in Darfur is fueled by a legacy of racial (not simply based on color but ethnicity, heritage, tradition and culture) hatred and a perceived Arab need for arable land inhabited by the blacks of Darfur.

Why have the great powers of the West allowed the cycle of genocide and mass human suffering to continue, but been anxious to quell far less severe conflicts in Europe? The robust military action by the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization led by the United States in Kosovo is a case in point. The humanitarian crisis in Kosovo was not nearly as catastrophic as the genocide unfolding in Darfur, where more than 30,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million displaced, scores being kidnapped and enslaved by Sudanese government-backed Arab Janjaweed militias. Are the lives of Africans less valuable than Europeans to decision-makers in the West?

The situation in Darfur is beyond horrific. Unless the genocide is stopped and humanitarian relief agencies are properly supported and given unfettered access to the people of Darfur, hundreds of thousands of black Sudanese will die from starvation and disease over the next several months.

Recent visits to Darfur by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan — the two most influential diplomats in the world who happen to be black — brought international attention to the genocide in Darfur and perhaps temporarily slowed Khartoum’s killing in the region. However, the unwillingness of the United States and the United Nations to declare the situation in Darfur a genocide is unforgivable, reckless and reminiscent of Rwanda.

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as “acts of bodily injury or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life intended to cause physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births or forcibly transferring children.” The Sudanese government appears to have conspired with and supported the Janjaweed militias to commit genocide and in doing so has violated basic human rights law, humanitarian law, and international criminal law norms. From this background, why are the United States and other nations reluctant to categorize the situation in Darfur as genocide? Under the Genocide Convention and international law, states have a positive duty to “prevent and punish” acts of genocide. Even the African Union, Africa’s foremost regional political body, is reluctant to pronounce the crisis in Darfur as genocide.

That said, the reluctance of the United States to take unilateral action is in some ways rational for four reasons: (1) a lack of strategic interests in the Sudan outside of the war on terrorism; (2) humanitarian intervention in Africa has been an unpopular policy option since the Somalia debacle in 1991; (3) a lack of political will, given the Bush administration cannot afford to have American troops killed in another “Arabized state” in an election year, and (4) a seemingly consistent global bias against saving African lives (e.g., Rwanda and Liberia). To its credit, the United States and allies were able to muster a U.N. Security Council resolution, albeit weak, condemning the violence in Darfur and calling on all U.N. member states to support the protection force being established by the African Union. While the powers that be debate over how to define the crisis in Darfur (“genocide” or not) and what language to include in U.N. resolutions (“sanctions” or not), the people of Darfur continue to suffer and die.

Since the calamity in Sudan is far worse than the 1999 Kosovo crisis or the circumstances that prevailed in Iraq before U.S. occupation in 2003, why don’t we “free the people” of Darfur from the tyrannical and genocidal Sudanese regime? Why don’t we arrest President Omar Bashir and try him for war crimes like other heads of state such as Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor and Saddam Hussein? Remember, the Sudan was the original safe haven for Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network. Racism against blacks in Sudan is not only a core root cause of the genocide but also the source of international inaction in the country. I hasten to believe that America’s response would not be as slipshod if whites in Zimbabwe or South Africa were facing a similar tragedy.