Alex De Waal and Darfur Genocide Question

By Steve Paterno

March 22, 2009 –The Sudanese foremost expert and scholar, Dr. Alex De Waal is hosting debates on the Darfur conflict in his Internet blog. Specifically, the discussions centered on the question of genocide with respect to the International Criminal Court (ICC) proceedings.

At least on the deliberations, three of the central issues are discussed; notably whether or not the atrocities in Darfur constitutes genocide, whether or not the case of genocide can be presentable in court, and should someone be held accountable for the atrocities committed in Darfur, particularly if that someone is Omar al-Bashir, the president in Khartoum.

In all, De Waal dismisses outright the claim of genocide committed in Darfur, he then laughs off at any evidence of genocide charges that can be presented in court, and adamantly opposes the notion that Omar al-Bashir is to be held accountable to the crimes committed in Darfur. He then goes on relentless attacks on the ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, even at times comparing him to a whiny student with failing grades who prepared a “shoddy” work. He taunts the Prosecutor that had he been his student and made such a “shoddy” presentation, he would not even give him a failing grade, but rather ask him to redo the work all and over again before flunking him.

De Waal’s positions are easily challengeable, but more even so, the motives behind such positions are suspects. Just weeks prior to the ICC Prosecutor Ocampo could file his application for arrest warrant against President Omar al-Bashir in July of last year, De Waal was privileged to have been tipped off of the Ocampo’s imminent move. As a result of the tipped off, De Waal on his part alerted President al-Bashir of the ICC move against him. Prior to this incident, De Waal on many occasions made strong arguments against genocidal activities in Darfur committed by none other than the Bashir, his regime in Khartoum, and the sponsored Janjaweed militias. So, De Waal current position signifies a drastic shift from his previous stand. For example, in July of 2004, in Addis Ababa, Alex De Waal claimed that after he barely left Sudan, (Darfur in particular) in the year “1987, political processes were in motion that led ultimately to the outbreak of war in 2003 and its escalation into genocidal massacre and displacement.” If this was the case, one questions why De Waal now speaks from the other side of his mouth, arguing the opposite on this same question of genocide. He was clear four years ago!
At that same period, De Waal went on to recommend that Darfur should not only be a place for “a textbook study of famine, but of genocide as well.” Well, no one will be more disappointed than the students of Sudanese affairs after learning that the leading expert and scholar of Sudan recommended an exciting field of studies (genocide) and abruptly abandoned the pursuit of that study, only to turn around and criticize those who took his initial recommendation as people with “little knowledge of Sudan.” Should it be that De Waal lost all his students or perhaps there is more to that?

According to statement by De Waal, four years ago, what was happening in Darfur did “fit the definition contained in the Genocide Convention, which is much broader and encompasses systematic campaigns against ethnic groups with the intention of eliminating them in part or whole.” In other words, De Waal wrote, “genocidal intent can be shown” in the conflict of Darfur. Hearing this coming from an expert, a judge may declare the case close in favor of genocide charges. One is tempted to ask, where is the ICC? They should be taking notes.

To find the motivation, which is the driving force for this genocidal campaign in Darfur, De Waal argued, “’ideology’ of ‘Sudanization’, namely the spread of specific social and cultural values, economic and political relations, associated with the riverain core of the Sudanese state, is at work, in tandem with the Arab supremacism of the Janjaweed leadership.” In this reference, De Waal identified the culprits, their intent, and ideologies behind the genocidal campaign—the significant components of genocide determination that De Waal today claims are difficult to identify, especially by an Argentinean Prosecutor with a funny name called Ocampo. Perhaps, Ocampo should consult De Waal’s work of four years ago so as to avoid De Waal’s wrath.
As to the solution to this ongoing genocide, De Waal could only make comparisons on the strength of the Darfur people that since “the people of Darfur have shown comparable resilience in surviving famine: let us hope they have the same skills when faced with genocidal massacre.” By equal measures, one can argue that since Khartoum kicked out the relief agencies which provide food for Darfuris, on the same vein, let’s hope the Darfuris “resilience in surviving famine” will keep them alive way after al-Bashir imprisonment. Hence, ICC backlash should not be an excuse to defer justice against the perpetrators of genocide, given the “resilience” of the Darfur people that they will survive without the relief agencies as long as justice is served.

Writing for Index on Censorship in 2005, De Waal agreed with the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell for being “correct in law” by accurately describing the war in Darfur as ‘genocide.’ One can assume that it is this very “correct law” that Ocampo is using to prosecute crimes in Darfur. Why De Waal attacks Ocampo then if the law is correct on this issue? He would have blamed Ocampo had he used wrong anthropological interpretations for the prosecution, but for using the correct law; one is left to wonder on the motive for attacking Ocampo.

Once again, De Waal explained that, “according to the facts as known and the law as laid down in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the killings, displacement and rape in Darfur are rightly characterized as ‘genocide’.” The “facts” here according to De Waal, imply the evidence on the ground for the killing, displacement and rape. Therefore, as De Waal’s analysis stated, Ocampo should borrow this conclusion to strengthen his alleged weak presentation to the judges. On the flip side though, if al-Bashir reads this statement, it will not take long for him to pop on television to declare De Waal an ICC supporter. A supporter of ICC in Khartoum’s jargon is an enemy.

De Waal went on to stress that in order to prosecute the perpetrators of genocide, “the bar is lower.” If one compares this to De Waal’s attacks on Ocampo for his ‘student failing grade’ analogy,’ then one can see that De Waal is only contradicting himself. So, if the “bar is lower” in prosecution of genocide, particularly at the pretrial state, then where did Ocampo go wrong, especially on the analogy of ‘student failing grade,’ advanced by De Waal as a means to discredit Ocampo.

To supplement his argument of a bar being lower for the prosecutions of genocide, De Waal compared that, “this can be inferred from the successful ICTR prosecution of a Rwandese genocidaire, Jean-Paul Akayesu, in which it was found that intent could be inferred from a number of presumptions of fact, including the general context in which deliberate harm was systematically being inflicted on the target group.” According to De Waal’s own conclusions, “presumptions” is the standard for prosecutions of genocide, and then one sense a real reason for Ocampo to appeal the case of genocide charges against al-Bashir or as De Waal nicely argued back then that as for the Darfur case, “the fact that the state did not plan genocide is immaterial. It planned a counterinsurgency and gave its officers complete impunity to commit atrocities, which they routinely done on a gross scale and an ethnic basis. This was ethics-free counterinsurgency, escalated to a genocidal extreme.” De Waal may try to make a u-turn on this by emphasizing that it’s “counterinsurgency on the cheap” or what have you, but the escalation of the war in Darfur led into genocide, therefore, genocide is committed in Darfur just as the escalation of a downed plane led into genocide in Rwanda, leading into genocide being committed in Rwanda.

Arguing anthropologically on how difficult it is to identify the perpetrators and the targets in the case of Darfur, De Waal drew a parallel with Rwanda where he pointed out that the ICTR overcame the issue by putting emphasis on “what was subjectively believed in the minds of those perpetrating the acts in question.” This goes to explain that if the Arab Janjaweed are as dark as their victims or if they are Africans themselves, but yet in their empty minds they believe they are Arabs and go to commit genocidal acts on the ideology of Arab supremacism, then that is all what requires to convict al-Bashir on genocide charges. One will conclude that Ocampo has his work outlined for him here if he so decide to cite anthropological evidence by the principal expert to strengthen his alleged shoddy case of genocide against al-Bashir and the company.

In 2007, in Prospect Magazine on the question of whether the atrocities in Darfur constitutes genocide, De Waal explained, “certainly, the crimes of the Janjaweed and their backers seem to fit the genocide convention definition of acts intended to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial or religious group.” Again, an acknowledgement of genocide committed in Darfur by both Janjaweed and their masters in Khartoum, al-Bashir included.

De Waal shifting of positions on this subject is drastic, and it is the reason that lead many people to speculate on his contacts with al-Bashir just weeks prior to Ocampo’s filing the application of arrest warrant against al-Bashir where De Waal decided to alert al-Bashir. Of course, it is not that the allegation of De Waal alerting al-Bashir is false as those who came into his defense are arguing. De Waal courageously and honestly admitted his role in alerting al-Bashir and the company. So, what should be known is that De Waal decision to alert al-Bashir can leave many people to speculate on what is really that they discussed with al-Bashir. The burden is up for De Waal to explain the nature of his actions with respect to alerting al-Bashir. Furthermore, he has to justify why he made a sudden drastic shift of his positions. Base on the above examples, his current position is a complete reversal of the previous one; a sharp u-turn. So, is genocide committed in Darfur? Perhaps, it is not a necessary question to ask, after all.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]