Strategic victimhood in Sudan – A response
By Bill Andress*
June 12, 2006 — The New York Times on May 31, 2006 carried an op-ed article on Darfur entitled: “Strategic Victimhood in Sudan” by Alan Kuperman, Assistant Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs.
Based on the coverage that his article received, one must credit Dr. Kuperman and acknowledge his skill in political use of the media. While the public response to the article has been overwhelmingly negative, certainly those who support and perpetrate the genocide agree with him. For that reason, his essay is proudly displayed on the Embassy of the Republic of Sudan and the Arab-American News websites.
It is tempting to take his essay apart paragraph by paragraph.
For example he asserts, “Without such (international military)
intervention, Sudan’s government last month agreed to a peace
accord pledging to disarm Arab janjaweed militias and resettle
displaced civilians.” A more balanced essay would acknowledge
that if the Government of Sudan were so inclined, it could have
stopped the genocide before 450,000 mostly women and children
lost their lives. But paragraph by paragraph probably is not
the best way to respond. Here are a couple of concerns:
As Nicholas Kristof responded, “…..the essential truth is that
Sudan’s government is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of
people on the basis of their tribe and skin color – and that is
genocide, and the rest is detail.” That, as Kristof does so
well, captures the essential flaw in a nutshell.
Secondly, Kuperman suggests that the real problem is tribalism.
Certainly, it is true that an element of the fighting has been a
manifestation of ancient tribal issues, but to morally equate
the genocidal response of the government with the efforts of a
marginalized people to break that marginalization is nonsense.
Darfur rebels, inspired by the success of the SPLA attacked a
Government of Sudan military base in an effort to stop
marginalization. There may have been a better way, but the
government’s response was (as Kuperman acknowledged) a
“…criminally irresponsible reaction” – in short genocide.
Tribal conflict is a blemish on all of Sudan just as it is on
much of the African continent, but it is not the main issue
here. Rather, the main issue is an attempt by oppressed peoples
to improve their lives and the government’s response to that
effort.
In this statement: “…we should let Sudan’s army handle any
recalcitrant rebels….,” Kuperman suggests that if advocates
would just back off and let the Sudanese handle their own
affairs, this crisis would be resolved quickly. This proposed
solution ignores the fact that the Sudanese government is the
major cause of the problem. Rather than judging future
government actions by papers they have signed, we should judge
by its history. The government’s declarations of intent on
paper have meant very little in Sudan’s past.
Since Sudan gained its independence 50 years ago, there has been
almost continual civil war. Southerners fought for about 40 of
those years to gain a measure of freedom. Seeing their success,
oppressed Darfuri rebelled to gain their own basic freedom. In
the East, the Beja people have been fighting for decades and
indeed the next major area of conflict may be in eastern Sudan.
Why have they fought? Because the control of the nation has
always been in the hands of a small group of elitist, Arabic,
radical Muslims who are driven by greed, racism, cultural and
religious oppression. And as their strategy has been genocide,
their tactics have included divide-and-conquer, rape,
starvation, slavery, and plunder. Both strategy and tactics
have been executed brilliantly given the government’s objective.
Why should Sudanese not fight back!
Kuperman seems to have emboldened Sara Flounders who wrote an
outlandish article titled “The U.S. Role in Darfur” which was
published Monday, June 05, 2006 in “Daily Muslims,” “Workers
World,” and assorted blogs. Sara sees a
Zionist-Capitalist-Imperialist conspiracy behind every tree. To
Sara the Chinese, who have clearly exploited the conflict for
their own national economic purposes, are the heroes and U.S.
corporations which by law do not even do business in Sudan are
the villains. Truly, Sara “flounders”.
All too apparently genocide has been the strategy-of-choice of
the Government of Sudan for decades. One should not
underestimate the intelligence, the effectiveness, nor the
unwavering dedication to purpose of the military dictatorship of
Sudan … nor, I might add, should we underestimate the evil.
Those who oppose despotism and genocide and who advocate for its
cessation are to be joined – not put down. Just as with the
rebels, there may be better ways, from time to time there may be
better paths for advocacy, but to do nothing is unacceptable.
Advocates who are guided by religious and moral teachings were
and are on track when they act to oppose genocide. Will they
make tactical mistakes in their advocacy? Certainly. Might
there be unintended consequences? Certainly. The challenge is
to persevere, learn from mistakes and remain undeterred by
detractors such as Kuperman and Flounders.
* Bill Andress, Moderator, Sudan Advocacy Action Forum Lexington, SC, USA. He can be reached at [email protected]